Quality assurance of surgery in the randomized ST03 trial of perioperative chemotherapy in carcinoma of the stomach and gastro-oesophageal junction.

BACKGROUND: The UK Medical Research Council ST03 trial compared perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab (B) in gastric and oesophagogastric junctional cancer. No difference in survival was noted between the arms of the trial. The present study reviewed the standards and performance of surgery in the context of the protocol-specified surgical criteria. METHODS: Surgical and pathological clinical report forms were reviewed to determine adherence to the surgical protocols, perioperative morbidity and mortality, and final histopathological stage for all patients treated in the study. RESULTS: Of 1063 patients randomized, 895 (84·2 per cent) underwent resection; surgical details were available for 880 (98·3 per cent). Postoperative assessment data were available for 873 patients; complications occurred in 458 (52·5 per cent) overall, of whom 71 (8·1 per cent) developed complications deemed to be life-threatening by the responsible clinician. The most common complications were respiratory (211 patients, 24·2 per cent). The anastomotic leak rate was 118 of 873 (13·5 per cent) overall; among those who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, the rate was higher in the group receiving ECX-B (23·6 per cent versus 9·9 per cent in the ECX group). Pathological assessment data were available for 845 patients. At least 15 nodes were removed in 82·5 per cent of resections and the median lymph node harvest was 24 (i.q.r. 17-34). Twenty-five or more nodes were removed in 49·0 per cent of patients. Histopathologically, the R1 rate was 24·9 per cent (208 of 834 patients). An R1 resection was more common for proximal tumours. CONCLUSION: In the ST03 trial, the performance of surgery met the protocol-stipulated criteria. Registration number: NCT00450203 ( http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Co-enrolment of Participants into Multiple Cancer Trials: Benefits and Challenges.

Opportunities to enter patients into more than one clinical trial are not routinely considered in cancer research and experiences with co-enrolment are rarely reported. Potential benefits of allowing appropriate co-enrolment have been identified in other settings but there is a lack of evidence base or guidance to inform these decisions in oncology. Here, we discuss the benefits and challenges associated with co-enrolment based on experiences in the Add-Aspirin trial - a large, multicentre trial recruiting across a number of tumour types, where opportunities to co-enrol patients have been proactively explored and managed. The potential benefits of co-enrolment include: improving recruitment feasibility; increased opportunities for patients to participate in trials; and collection of robust data on combinations of interventions, which will ensure the ongoing relevance of individual trials and provide more cohesive evidence to guide the management of future patients. There are a number of perceived barriers to co-enrolment in terms of scientific, safety and ethical issues, which warrant consideration on a trial-by-trial basis. In many cases, any potential effect on the results of the trials will be negligible - limited by a number of factors, including the overlap in trial cohorts. Participant representatives stress the importance of autonomy to decide about trial enrolment, providing a compelling argument for offering co-enrolment where there are multiple trials that are relevant to a patient and no concerns regarding safety or the integrity of the trials. A number of measures are proposed for managing and monitoring co-enrolment. Ensuring acceptability to (potential) participants is paramount. Opportunities to enter patients into more than one cancer trial should be considered more routinely. Where planned and managed appropriately, co-enrolment can offer a number of benefits in terms of both scientific value and efficiency of study conduct, and will increase the opportunities for patients to participate in, and benefit from, clinical research.

Metformin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Metformin use has been associated with a reduced risk of developing cancer and an improvement in overall cancer survival rates in meta-analyses, but, to date, evidence to support the use of metformin as an adjuvant therapy in individual cancer types has not been presented. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We systematically searched research databases, conference abstracts and trial registries for any studies reporting cancer outcomes for individual tumour types in metformin users compared with non-users, and extracted data on patients with early-stage cancer. Studies were assessed for design and quality, and a meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the adjuvant effect of metformin on recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and cancer-specific survival (CSS), to inform future trial design. RESULTS: Of 7670 articles screened, 27 eligible studies were identified comprising 24 178 participants, all enrolled in observational studies. In those with early-stage colorectal cancer, metformin use was associated with a significant benefit in all outcomes [RFS hazard ratio (HR) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47-0.85; OS HR 0.69, CI 0.58-0.83; CSS HR 0.58, CI 0.39-0.86]. For men with early-stage prostate cancer, metformin was associated with significant, or borderline significant, benefits in all outcomes (RFS HR 0.83, CI 0.69-1.00; OS HR 0.82, CI 0.73-0.93; CSS HR 0.58, CI 0.37-0.93); however, there was significant heterogeneity between studies. The data suggest that prostate cancer patients treated with radical radiotherapy may benefit more from metformin (RFS HR 0.45, CI 0.29-0.70). In breast and urothelial cancer, no significant benefits were identified. Sufficient data were not available to conduct analyses on the impact of metformin dose and duration. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that metformin could be a useful adjuvant agent, with the greatest benefits seen in colorectal and prostate cancer, particularly in those receiving radical radiotherapy, and randomised, controlled trials which investigate dose and duration, alongside efficacy, are advocated.

Modelling the likely effect of the increase of the upper age limit from 70 to 73 for breast screening in the UK National Programme.

The UK National Breast Screening Programme is planned to have the age range for invitation to screening expanded from 50-70 to 47-73. At the upper limit, this represents one additional screen taking place in the early 70s. We aimed to estimate the likely effect of this on breast cancer mortality and on overdiagnosis of breast cancer. We used estimates of breast cancer incidence and survival by detection mode (screening or symptomatic), screening lead time and mortality from competing causes to estimate the likely numbers of breast cancer deaths prevented per 1000 women screened, using both a stochastic continuous time model and a semi-deterministic discrete time model. In the continuous model, we estimated that per 1000 women screened 1.2 deaths would be prevented and in the discrete model 0.91 deaths. In the latter model, we also estimated that there would be around 6.8 years of life saved per 1000 women screened and an additional two diagnoses of breast cancer. These results suggest that the expansion of the upper age limit will be cost-effective. They remain to be confirmed by evaluation of the age extension. They provide prior estimates that may inform the evaluation of the age extension.

Second breast cancers in a Tuscan case series: characteristics, prognosis, and predictors of survival.

Little is known about long-term outcomes following a second breast cancer diagnosis. We describe the epidemiology, characteristics and prognosis of second breast cancers in an Italian cohort. We identified women with two breast cancer diagnoses from 24 278 histology records at a Tuscan breast cancer service between 1980 and 2005, and determined their survival status. Disease-specific survival from second diagnosis was examined using Cox regression analyses. Second cancers were identified in 1044 women with a median age of 60 years. In all 455 were ipsilateral relapses and 589 were contralateral cancers. Median time between first and second diagnosis was 63.4 months. The majority of second cancers was small invasive or in situ tumours. Estimated 10-year survival from a second cancer diagnosis was 78%. Survival was poorest when the second cancer was large (HR=2.26) or node-positive (HR=3.43), when the time between the two diagnoses was <5 years (HR=1.45), or when the diagnosis was in an earlier epoch (HR=2.20). Second tumours were more likely to be large or node-positive if the first breast cancer had these features. Prognosis following a second breast cancer in this cohort was generally good. However, large or node-positive second tumours, and shorter intervals between diagnoses were indicators of poorer survival.

Does rapid dose titration affect the hepatic safety profile of Bosentan?

RATIONALE: Bosentan, a dual endothelin receptor antagonist, has proven efficacy in pulmonary hypertension. Due to an association with hepatic dysfunction, it is typically initiated at a sub-therapeutic dose for 4 weeks before titration to a therapeutic dose. At our institution some patients have undergone rapid titration, to potentially benefit from therapy earlier. This study assesses the impact of this practice on hepatic safety. METHOD: All patients initiated on bosentan therapy before April 2005 were included. Rapidly titrated patients achieved a therapeutic dose by 3 days, whereas standard titration patients were titrated at 4 weeks. All patients were monitored with monthly liver function tests. RESULTS: 149 patients commenced bosentan, of which 55 were rapidly titrated. At baseline, the two groups were similar in age, BMI, diagnosis, 6-min walking distance, alanine aminotransferase (ALT), cardiac index and pulmonary artery pressures. The rapid group had elevated right atrial pressures (9.7 mm Hg versus 7.4 mm Hg, p = 0.016) and worse WHO functional class (p = 0.008) and included less females (31% versus 69%, p = 0.024). The incidence of hepatic dysfunction in all patients was 12.8% at 12 months. There was no statistical difference in incidence between the rapid and standard groups (4% versus 11% at 3 months, p = 0.211 and 6% versus 15% at 12 months, p = 0.219). Of all patients on bosentan, hepatic dysfunction was most significantly associated with a higher baseline ALT (p = 0.021), female sex (p = 0.003) and underlying connective tissue disease (p = 0.025). Subgroup analysis suggested these factors were not confounders when comparing rapid and standard titration. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid and standard titration of bosentan resulted in similar hepatic safety profiles. Baseline ALT, female sex and the presence of connective tissue disease increased the risk of hepatic dysfunction independent of the titration method used.