Monitoring advances including consent: learning from COVID-19 trials and other trials running in UKCRC registered clinical trials units during the pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has affected how clinical trials are managed, both within existing portfolios and for the rapidly developed COVID-19 trials. Sponsors or delegated organisations responsible for monitoring trials have needed to consider and implement alternative ways of working due to the national infection risk necessitating restricted movement of staff and public, reduced clinical staff resource as research staff moved to clinical areas, and amended working arrangements for sponsor and sponsor delegates as staff moved to working from home.Organisations have often worked in isolation to fast track mitigations required for the conduct of clinical trials during the pandemic; this paper describes many of the learnings from a group of monitoring leads based in United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Unit (CTUs) within the UK.The UKCRC Monitoring Task and Finish Group, comprising monitoring leads from 9 CTUs, met repeatedly to identify how COVID-19 had affected clinical trial monitoring. Informed consent is included as a specific issue within this paper, as review of completed consent documentation is often required within trial monitoring plans (TMPs). Monitoring is defined as involving on-site monitoring, central monitoring or/and remote monitoring.Monitoring, required to protect the safety of the patients and the integrity of the trial and ensure the protocol is followed, is often best done by a combination of central, remote and on-site monitoring. However, if on-site monitoring is not possible, workable solutions can be found using only central or central and remote monitoring. eConsent, consent by a third person, or via remote means is plausible. Minimising datasets to the critical data reduces workload for sites and CTU staff. Home working caused by COVID-19 has made electronic trial master files (TMFs) more inviting. Allowing sites to book and attend protocol training at a time convenient to them has been successful and worth pursuing for trials with many sites in the future.The arrival of COVID-19 in the UK has forced consideration of and changes to how clinical trials are conducted in relation to monitoring. Some developed practices will be useful in other pandemics and others should be incorporated into regular use.

Radiotherapy plus cisplatin or cetuximab in low-risk human papillomavirus-positive oropharyngeal cancer (De-ESCALaTE HPV): an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of human papillomavirus (HPV)-positive oropharyngeal cancer, a disease affecting younger patients, is rapidly increasing. Cetuximab, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, has been proposed for treatment de-escalation in this setting to reduce the toxicity of standard cisplatin treatment, but no randomised evidence exists for the efficacy of this strategy. METHODS: We did an open-label randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 32 head and neck treatment centres in Ireland, the Netherlands, and the UK, in patients aged 18 years or older with HPV-positive low-risk oropharyngeal cancer (non-smokers or lifetime smokers with a smoking history of <10 pack-years). Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive, in addition to radiotherapy (70 Gy in 35 fractions), either intravenous cisplatin (100 mg/m2 on days 1, 22, and 43 of radiotherapy) or intravenous cetuximab (400 mg/m2 loading dose followed by seven weekly infusions of 250 mg/m2). The primary outcome was overall severe (grade 3-5) toxicity events at 24 months from the end of treatment. The primary outcome was assessed by intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN33522080. FINDINGS: Between Nov 12, 2012, and Oct 1, 2016, 334 patients were recruited (166 in the cisplatin group and 168 in the cetuximab group). Overall (acute and late) severe (grade 3-5) toxicity did not differ significantly between treatment groups at 24 months (mean number of events per patient 4·8 [95% CI 4·2-5·4] with cisplatin vs 4·8 [4·2-5·4] with cetuximab; p=0·98). At 24 months, overall all-grade toxicity did not differ significantly either (mean number of events per patient 29·2 [95% CI 27·3-31·0] with cisplatin vs 30·1 [28·3-31·9] with cetuximab; p=0·49). However, there was a significant difference between cisplatin and cetuximab in 2-year overall survival (97·5% vs 89·4%, hazard ratio 5·0 [95% CI 1·7-14·7]; p=0·001) and 2-year recurrence (6·0% vs 16·1%, 3·4 [1·6-7·2]; p=0·0007). INTERPRETATION: Compared with the standard cisplatin regimen, cetuximab showed no benefit in terms of reduced toxicity, but instead showed significant detriment in terms of tumour control. Cisplatin and radiotherapy should be used as the standard of care for HPV-positive low-risk patients who are able to tolerate cisplatin. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.