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.

Hit it hard: qualitative patient perspectives on the optimisation of immune checkpoint inhibition.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors have transformed the treatment landscape of many cancers, including melanoma and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Randomised trials are evaluating outcomes from reduced ICI treatment schedules with the aim of improving quality of life, tolerability, and cost-effectiveness. This study aims to provide insight into patient and carer's perspectives of these trials. METHODS: Seven focus groups were conducted with 31 people with stage IV melanoma, RCC, or caregivers for people receiving ICI. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: 1) "Treatment and clinic visits provide reassurance": reducing hospital visits may not improve quality of life. 2) "Assessment of personal risk versus benefit": the decision to participate in an ICI optimisation trial is influenced by treatment response, experience of toxicity and perceived logistical benefits based on the individual's circumstances. 3) "Pre-existing experience and beliefs about how treatment and trials work", including the belief that more treatment is better, influence views around ICI optimisation trials. CONCLUSION: This study provides insight into recruitment challenges and recommends strategies to enhance recruitment for ongoing ICI optimisation trials. These findings will influence the design of future ICI optimisation trials ensuring they are acceptable to patients.

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.

Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Effect of very long-term storage and multiple freeze and thaw cycles on 11-dehydro-thromboxane-B2 and 8-iso-prostaglandin F2α, levels in human urine samples by validated enzyme immunoassays.

Biological samples are often frozen and stored for years and/or thawed multiple times, thus assessing their stability on long-term storage and repeated freeze-thaw cycles is crucial. The study aims were to assess:-the long-term stability of two major enzymatic and non-enzymatic metabolites of arachidonic acid, i.e. urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane-(Tx) B2, 8-iso-prostaglandin (PG)F2α, and creatinine in frozen urine samples;-the effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles. Seven-hundred and three urine samples measured in previously-published studies, stored at -40 °C, and measured for a second time for 11-dehydro-TxB2 (n = 677) and/or 8-iso-PGF2α (n = 114) and/or creatinine (n = 610) were stable over 10 years and the 2 measurements were highly correlated (all rho = 0.99, P < 0.0001). Urine samples underwent 10 sequential freeze-thaw cycles, with and without the antioxidant 4-hydroxy-2,2,6,6-tetramethylpiperidin-1-oxyl (10 mM); urinary 11-dehydro-TxB2 and creatinine were stable across all cycles (11-dehydro-TxB2: 100.4 ± 21%; creatinine: 101 ± 7% of baseline at cycle ten; n = 17), while 8-iso-PGF2α significantly increased by cycle 6 (151 ± 22% of baseline at cycle ten, n = 17, P < 0.05) together with hydrogen peroxide only in the absence of antioxidant. Arachidonic acid metabolites and creatinine appear stable in human urines stored at -40 °C over 10 years. Multiple freeze-thaw cycles increase urinary 8-iso-PGF2α in urine samples without antioxidants. These data are relevant for studies using urine samples stored over long-term and/or undergoing multiple freezing-thawing.

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.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

Thromboxane biosynthesis in cancer patients and its inhibition by aspirin: a sub-study of the Add-Aspirin trial.

BACKGROUND: Pre-clinical models demonstrate that platelet activation is involved in the spread of malignancy. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing whether aspirin, which inhibits platelet activation, can prevent or delay metastases. METHODS: Urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (U-TXM), a biomarker of in vivo platelet activation, was measured after radical cancer therapy and correlated with patient demographics, tumour type, recent treatment, and aspirin use (100 mg, 300 mg or placebo daily) using multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed values. RESULTS: In total, 716 patients (breast 260, colorectal 192, gastro-oesophageal 53, prostate 211) median age 61 years, 50% male were studied. Baseline median U-TXM were breast 782; colorectal 1060; gastro-oesophageal 1675 and prostate 826 pg/mg creatinine; higher than healthy individuals (~500 pg/mg creatinine). Higher levels were associated with raised body mass index, inflammatory markers, and in the colorectal and gastro-oesophageal participants compared to breast participants (P < 0.001) independent of other baseline characteristics. Aspirin 100 mg daily decreased U-TXM similarly across all tumour types (median reductions: 77-82%). Aspirin 300 mg daily provided no additional suppression of U-TXM compared with 100 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Persistently increased thromboxane biosynthesis was detected after radical cancer therapy, particularly in colorectal and gastro-oesophageal patients. Thromboxane biosynthesis should be explored further as a biomarker of active malignancy and may identify patients likely to benefit from aspirin.

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.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol.

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. METHODS: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). INTERPRETATION: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data.

BACKGROUND: Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. METHODS: Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. RESULTS: From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. CONCLUSION: Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD.

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.

Automated detection and delineation of lymph nodes in haematoxylin & eosin stained digitised slides.

Treatment of patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer (OeGC) is guided by disease stage, patient performance status and preferences. Lymph node (LN) status is one of the strongest prognostic factors for OeGC patients. However, survival varies between patients with the same disease stage and LN status. We recently showed that LN size from patients with OeGC might also have prognostic value, thus making delineations of LNs essential for size estimation and the extraction of other imaging biomarkers. We hypothesized that a machine learning workflow is able to: (1) find digital H&E stained slides containing LNs, (2) create a scoring system providing degrees of certainty for the results, and (3) delineate LNs in those images. To train and validate the pipeline, we used 1695 H&E slides from the OE02 trial. The dataset was divided into training (80%) and validation (20%). The model was tested on an external dataset of 826 H&E slides from the OE05 trial. U-Net architecture was used to generate prediction maps from which predefined features were extracted. These features were subsequently used to train an XGBoost model to determine if a region truly contained a LN. With our innovative method, the balanced accuracies of the LN detection were 0.93 on the validation dataset (0.83 on the test dataset) compared to 0.81 (0.81) on the validation (test) datasets when using the standard method of thresholding U-Net predictions to arrive at a binary mask. Our method allowed for the creation of an "uncertain" category, and partly limited false-positive predictions on the external dataset. The mean Dice score was 0.73 (0.60) per-image and 0.66 (0.48) per-LN for the validation (test) datasets. Our pipeline detects images with LNs more accurately than conventional methods, and high-throughput delineation of LNs can facilitate future LN content analyses of large datasets.

REFINE (REduced Frequency ImmuNE checkpoint inhibition in cancers): A multi-arm phase II basket trial testing reduced intensity immunotherapy across different cancers.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2-6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2-3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs. METHODS/DESIGN: REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021-002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001-0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0.

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.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units.

BACKGROUND: Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations. METHODS: Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols. RESULTS: We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement. DISCUSSION: Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival. METHODS: Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression). RESULTS: Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.