Dynamic data-enabled stratified sampling for trial invitations with application in NHS-Galleri.

BACKGROUND: Participants of health research studies such as cancer screening trials usually have better health than the target population. Data-enabled recruitment strategies might be used to help minimise healthy volunteer effects on study power and improve equity. METHODS: A computer algorithm was developed to help target trial invitations. It assumes participants are recruited from distinct sites (such as different physical locations or periods in time) that are served by clusters (such as general practitioners in England, or geographical areas), and the population may be split into defined groups (such as age and sex bands). The problem is to decide the number of people to invite from each group, such that all recruitment slots are filled, healthy volunteer effects are accounted for, and equity is achieved through representation in sufficient numbers of all major societal and ethnic groups. A linear programme was formulated for this problem. RESULTS: The optimisation problem was solved dynamically for invitations to the NHS-Galleri trial (ISRCTN91431511). This multi-cancer screening trial aimed to recruit 140,000 participants from areas in England over 10 months. Public data sources were used for objective function weights, and constraints. Invitations were sent by sampling according to lists generated by the algorithm. To help achieve equity the algorithm tilts the invitation sampling distribution towards groups that are less likely to join. To mitigate healthy volunteer effects, it requires a minimum expected event rate of the primary outcome in the trial. CONCLUSION: Our invitation algorithm is a novel data-enabled approach to recruitment that is designed to address healthy volunteer effects and inequity in health research studies. It could be adapted for use in other trials or research studies.

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. METHODS: Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. CONCLUSIONS: A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference.

Effect of Single-Fraction vs Multifraction Radiotherapy on Ambulatory Status Among Patients With Spinal Canal Compression From Metastatic Cancer: The SCORAD Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Malignant spinal canal compression, a major complication of metastatic cancer, is managed with radiotherapy to maintain mobility and relieve pain, although there is no standard radiotherapy regimen. Objective: To evaluate whether single-fraction radiotherapy is noninferior to 5 fractions of radiotherapy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted in 42 UK and 5 Australian radiotherapy centers. Eligible patients (n = 686) had metastatic cancer with spinal cord or cauda equina compression, life expectancy greater than 8 weeks, and no previous radiotherapy to the same area. Patients were recruited between February 2008 and April 2016, with final follow-up in September 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive external beam single-fraction 8-Gy radiotherapy (n = 345) or 20 Gy of radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 5 consecutive days (n = 341). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was ambulatory status at week 8, based on a 4-point scale and classified as grade 1 (ambulatory without the use of aids and grade 5 of 5 muscle power) or grade 2 (ambulatory using aids or grade 4 of 5 muscle power). The noninferiority margin for the difference in ambulatory status was -11%. Secondary end points included ambulatory status at weeks 1, 4, and 12 and overall survival. Results: Among 686 randomized patients (median [interquartile range] age, 70 [64-77] years; 503 (73%) men; 44% had prostate cancer, 19% had lung cancer, and 12% had breast cancer), 342 (49.8%) were analyzed for the primary end point (255 patients died before the 8-week assessment). Ambulatory status grade 1 or 2 at week 8 was achieved by 115 of 166 (69.3%) patients in the single-fraction group vs 128 of 176 (72.7%) in the multifraction group (difference, -3.5% [1-sided 95% CI, -11.5% to ∞]; P value for noninferiority = .06). The difference in ambulatory status grade 1 or 2 in the single-fraction vs multifraction group was -0.4% (63.9% vs 64.3%; [1-sided 95% CI, -6.9 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority = .004) at week 1, -0.7% (66.8% vs 67.6%; [1-sided 95% CI, -8.1 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority = .01) at week 4, and 4.1% (71.8% vs 67.7%; [1-sided 95% CI, -4.6 to ∞]; P value for noninferiority = .002) at week 12. Overall survival rates at 12 weeks were 50% in the single-fraction group vs 55% in the multifraction group (stratified hazard ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.74-1.41]). Of the 11 other secondary end points that were analyzed, the between-group differences were not statistically significant or did not meet noninferiority criterion. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with malignant metastatic solid tumors and spinal canal compression, a single radiotherapy dose, compared with a multifraction dose delivered over 5 days, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority for the primary outcome (ambulatory at 8 weeks). However, the extent to which the lower bound of the CI overlapped with the noninferiority margin should be considered when interpreting the clinical importance of this finding. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifiers: ISRCTN97555949 and ISRCTN97108008.

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C). DESIGN: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L). INTERVENTIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography). REFERENCE STANDARD: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests. LIMITATIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Colorectal and lung cancer are the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the UK. Optimal treatment depends on accurately defining (or 'staging') the extent of disease, particularly if it has spread to other parts of the body such as the liver. Current staging pathways are complex and rely on a variety of tests that use X-rays, such as computed tomography and positron emission tomography­computed tomography scans. Patients often undergo multiple tests before starting treatment. Alternatively, it is possible to scan the whole body using magnetic resonance imaging without X-rays, and this may be more accurate and reduce the time and number of tests needed before treatment can start. We compared the ability to detect cancer spread, efficiency, patient experience and cost-effectiveness of staging based on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with the standard NHS pathways in participants newly diagnosed with either lung (187 participants) or colorectal (299 participants) cancer. We found that the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was as accurate as standard staging pathways and resulted in very similar treatment decisions made by the clinical teams. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway detected 67% and 50% of participants with cancer spread in colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with 63% and 54%, respectively, for standard staging. However, staging was quicker using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (by 5 days for colorectal cancer and 6 days for lung cancer) and needed on average one less test to stage colorectal cancer. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was also cheaper (costing on average £216 and £317 for colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with £285 and £620, respectively, for standard pathways). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway if it reduced the time to staging and/or the number of tests. Agreement between different radiology doctors interpreting the same whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan was moderate for colon cancer and low for lung cancer, emphasising the need for training.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer. METHODS: The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2013, and Aug 19, 2016, 1020 patients were screened for eligibility. 370 patients were recruited, 299 of whom completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 56 to 78) for WB-MRI and 63% (51 to 74) for standard pathways, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (-5 to 13, p=0·51). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (95% [95% CI 92-97]) and standard pathways (93% [90-96], p=0·48). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 96% for WB-MRI and 95% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (median, 8 days [IQR 6-9]) than for the standard pathway (13 days [11-15]); a 5-day (3-7) difference. WB-MRI required fewer tests (median, one [95% CI 1 to 1]) than did standard pathways (two [2 to 2]), a difference of one (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 (95% CI 211-221) for WB-MRI and £285 (260-310) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways and reduce the number of tests needed, staging time, and cost. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. METHODS: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Patient preferences for whole-body MRI or conventional staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the importance placed by patients on attributes associated with whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) and standard cancer staging pathways and ascertain drivers of preference. METHODS: Patients recruited to two multi-centre diagnostic accuracy trials comparing WB-MRI with standard staging pathways in lung and colorectal cancer were invited to complete a discrete choice experiment (DCE), choosing between a series of alternate pathways in which 6 attributes (accuracy, time to diagnosis, scan duration, whole-body enclosure, radiation exposure, total scan number) were varied systematically. Data were analysed using a conditional logit regression model and marginal rates of substitution computed. The relative importance of each attribute and probabilities of choosing WB-MRI-based pathways were estimated. RESULTS: A total of 138 patients (mean age 65, 61% male, lung n = 72, colorectal n = 66) participated (May 2015 to September 2016). Lung cancer patients valued time to diagnosis most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation exposure, number of scans, and time in the scanner. Colorectal cancer patients valued accuracy most highly, followed by time to diagnosis, radiation exposure, and number of scans. Patients were willing to wait 0.29 (lung) and 0.45 (colorectal) weeks for a 1% increase in pathway accuracy. Patients preferred WB-MRI-based pathways (probability 0.64 [lung], 0.66 [colorectal]) if they were equivalent in accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis compared with a standard staging pathway. CONCLUSIONS: Staging pathways based on first-line WB-MRI are preferred by the majority of patients if they at least match standard pathways for diagnostic accuracy, time to diagnosis, and total scan number. KEY POINTS: • WB-MRI staging pathways are preferred to standard pathways by the majority of patients provided they at least match standard staging pathways for accuracy, total scan number, and time to diagnosis. • For patients with lung cancer, time to diagnosis was the attribute valued most highly, followed by accuracy, radiation dose, number of additional scans, and time in a scanner. Preference for patients with colorectal cancer was similar. • Most (63%) patients were willing to trade attributes, such as faster diagnosis, for improvements in pathway accuracy and reduced radiation exposure.

PHOTOSTENT-02: porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy plus stenting versus stenting alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer.

BACKGROUND: Endobiliary stenting is standard practice for palliation of obstructive jaundice due to biliary tract cancer (BTC). Photodynamic therapy (PDT) may also improve biliary drainage and previous small studies suggested survival benefit. AIMS: To assess the difference in outcome between patients with BTC undergoing palliative stenting plus PDT versus stenting alone. METHODS: 92 patients with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic BTC, ECOG performance status 0-3 and adequate biliary drainage were randomised (46 per group) to receive porfimer sodium PDT plus stenting or stenting alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Toxicity and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. Treatment arms were well balanced for baseline factors and prior therapy. RESULTS: No significant differences in grade 3-4 toxicities and no grade 3-4 adverse events due to PDT were observed. Thirteen (28%) PDT patients and 24 (52%) stent alone patients received subsequent palliative chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 8.4 months, OS and PFS were worse in patients receiving PDT compared with stent alone group (OS median 6.2 vs 9.8 months (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.43, p=0.048) and PFS median 3.4 vs 4.3 months (HR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.18, p=0.10), respectively). CONCLUSION: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC, PDT was associated with worse outcome than stenting alone, explained only in part by the differences in chemotherapy treatments. We conclude that optimal stenting remains the treatment of choice for malignant biliary obstruction and the use of PDT for this indication cannot be recommended outside of clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 87712758; EudraCT 2005-001173-96; UKCRN ID: 1461.

Circulating biomarkers during treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving cediranib in the UK ABC-03 trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis. Cediranib, in addition to cisplatin/gemcitabine [CisGem], improved the response rate, but did not improve the progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC-03 study. Minimally invasive biomarkers predictive of cediranib benefit may improve patient outcomes. METHODS: Changes in 15 circulating plasma angiogenesis or inflammatory-related proteins and cytokeratin-18 (CK18), measured at baseline and during therapy until disease progression, were correlated with overall survival (OS) using time-varying covariate Cox models (TVC). RESULTS: Samples were available from n = 117/124 (94%) patients. Circulating Ang1&2, FGFb, PDGFbb, VEGFC, VEGFR1 and CK18 decreased as a result of the therapy, independent of treatment with cediranib. Circulating VEGFR2 and Tie2 were preferentially reduced by cediranib. Patients with increasing levels of VEGFA at any time had a worse PFS and OS; this detrimental effect was attenuated in patients receiving cediranib. TVC analysis revealed CK18 and VEGFR2 increases correlated with poorer OS in all patients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rising circulating VEGFA levels in patients with ABC, treated with CisGem, are associated with worse PFS and OS, not seen in patients receiving cediranib. Rising levels of markers of tumour burden (CK18) and potential resistance (VEGFR2) are associated with worse outcomes and warrant validation.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. METHODS: The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. FINDINGS: Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. INTERPRETATION: Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

Preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab in rectal cancer: significance of pre-treatment and post-resection RAS mutations.

BACKGROUND: The influence of EGFR pathway mutations on cetuximab-containing rectal cancer preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is uncertain. METHODS: In a prospective phase II trial (EXCITE), patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined non-metastatic rectal adenocarinoma threatening/involving the surgical resection plane received pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab. Resection was recommended 8 weeks later. The primary endpoint was histopathologically clear (R0) resection margin. Pre-planned retrospective DNA pyrosequencing (PS) and next generation sequencing (NGS) of KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF was performed on the pre-treatment biopsy and resected specimen. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients were recruited and 76 underwent surgery, with R0 resection in 67 (82%, 90%CI: 73-88%) (four patients with clinical complete response declined surgery). Twenty-four patients (30%) had an excellent clinical or pathological response (ECPR). Using NGS 24 (46%) of 52 matched biopsies/resections were discrepant: ten patients (19%) gained 13 new resection mutations compared to biopsy (12 KRAS, one PIK3CA) and 18 (35%) lost 22 mutations (15 KRAS, 7 PIK3CA). Tumours only ever testing RAS wild-type had significantly greater ECPR than tumours with either biopsy or resection RAS mutations (14/29 [48%] vs 10/51 [20%], P=0.008), with a trend towards increased overall survival (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05-1.03, P=0.055). CONCLUSIONS: This regimen was feasible and the primary study endpoint was met. For the first time using pre-operative rectal CRT, emergence of clinically important new resection mutations is described, likely reflecting intratumoural heterogeneity manifesting either as treatment-driven selective clonal expansion or a geographical biopsy sampling miss.

Streamlining staging of lung and colorectal cancer with whole body MRI; study protocols for two multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies (Streamline C and Streamline L).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rapid and accurate cancer staging following diagnosis underpins patient management, in particular the identification of distant metastatic disease. Current staging guidelines recommend sequential deployment of various imaging platforms such as computerised tomography (CT) and positron emission tomography (PET) which can be time and resource intensive and onerous for patients. Recent studies demonstrate that whole body magnetic resonance Imaging (WB-MRI) may stage cancer efficiently in a single visit, with potentially greater accuracy than current staging investigations. The Streamline trials aim to evaluate whether WB-MRI increases per patient detection of metastases in non-small cell lung and colorectal cancer compared to standard staging pathways. METHODS: The Streamline trials are multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective diagnostic accuracy studies with a novel design to capture patient management decisions during staging pathways. The two trials recruit adult patients with proven or highly suspected new diagnosis of primary colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small cell lung cancer (Streamline L) referred for staging. Patients undergo WB-MRI in addition to standard staging investigations. Strict blinding protocols are enforced for those interpreting the imaging. A first major treatment decision is made by the multi-disciplinary team prior to WB-MRI revelation based on standard staging investigations only, then based on the WB-MRI and any additional tests precipitated by WB-MRI, and finally based on all available test results. The reference standard is derived by a multidisciplinary consensus panel who assess 12 months of follow-up data to adjudicate on the TNM stage at diagnosis. Health psychology assessment of patients' experiences of the cancer staging pathway will be undertaken via interviews and questionnaires. A cost (effectiveness) analysis of WB-MRI compared to standard staging pathways will be performed. DISCUSSION: We describe a novel approach to radiologist and clinician blinding to ascertain the 'true' diagnostic accuracy of differing imaging pathways and discuss our approach to assessing the impact of WB-MRI on clinical decision making in real-time. The Streamline trials will compare WB-MRI and standard imaging pathways in the same patients, thereby informing the most accurate and efficient approach to staging. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Streamline C ISRCTN43958015 (registered 25/7/2012). Streamline L ISRCTN50436483 (registered 31/7/2012).

Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6-12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. FINDINGS: We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79-86), 84% (81-87), and 87% (84-89), respectively and was 72% (66-78), 59% (49-67), and 46% (37-55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81-88), 86% (82-88), and 87% (84-90), respectively, and was 75% (68-80), 61% (50-70), and 48% (36-58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. INTERPRETATION: Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Cediranib or placebo in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (ABC-03): a randomised phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Cisplatin and gemcitabine is the standard first-line chemotherapy regimen for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer; expression of VEGF and its receptors is associated with adverse outcomes. We aimed to assess the effect of the addition of cediranib (an oral inhibitor of VEGF receptor 1, 2, and 3) to cisplatin and gemcitabine on progression-free survival. METHODS: In this multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised phase 2 study, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with histologically confirmed or cytologically confirmed advanced biliary tract cancer from hepatobiliary oncology referral centres in the UK. Patients were eligible if they had an ECOG performance status of 0-1 and an estimated life expectancy of longer than 3 months. Patients were given first-line cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy (25 mg/m(2) cisplatin and 1000 mg/m(2) gemcitabine [on days 1 and 8 every 21 days, for up to eight cycles]) with either 20 mg oral cediranib or placebo once a day until disease progression. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) with a minimisation algorithm, incorporating the stratification factors: extent of disease, primary disease site, previous treatment, ECOG performance status, and centre. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00939848, and was closed on Sept 30, 2014; results of the final analysis for the primary endpoint are presented. FINDINGS: Between April 5, 2011, and Sept 28, 2012, we enrolled 124 patients (62 in each group). With a median follow-up of 12·2 months (IQR 7·3-18·5), median progression-free survival was 8·0 months (95% CI 6·5-9·3) in the cediranib group and 7·4 months (5·7-8·5) in the placebo group (HR 0·93, 80% CI 0·74-1·19, 95% CI 0·65-1·35; p=0·72). Patients who received cediranib had more grade 3-4 toxic effects than did patients who received placebo: hypertension (23 [37%] vs 13 [21%]; p=0·05), diarrhoea (eight [13%] vs two [3%]; p=0·05); platelet count decreased (ten [16%] vs four [6%]; p=0·09), white blood cell decreased (15 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·06) and fatigue (16 [24%] vs seven [11%]; p=0·04). INTERPRETATION: Cediranib did not improve the progression-free survival of patients with advanced biliary tract cancer in combination with cisplatin and gemcitabine, which remains the standard of care. Although patients in the cediranib group had more adverse events, we recorded no unexpected toxic effects. The role of VEGF inhibition in addition to chemotherapy for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer remains investigational. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals.

Ablation with low-dose radioiodine and thyrotropin alfa in thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether low-dose radioiodine (1.1 GBq [30 mCi]) is as effective as high-dose radioiodine (3.7 GBq [100 mCi]) for treating patients with differentiated thyroid cancer or whether the effects of radioiodine (especially at a low dose) are influenced by using either recombinant human thyrotropin (thyrotropin alfa) or thyroid hormone withdrawal. METHODS: At 29 centers in the United Kingdom, we conducted a randomized noninferiority trial comparing low-dose and high-dose radioiodine, each in combination with either thyrotropin alfa or thyroid hormone withdrawal before ablation. Patients (age range, 16 to 80 years) had tumor stage T1 to T3, with possible spread to nearby lymph nodes but without metastasis. End points were the rate of success of ablation at 6 to 9 months, adverse events, quality of life, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: A total of 438 patients underwent randomization; data could be analyzed for 421. Ablation success rates were 85.0% in the group receiving low-dose radioiodine versus 88.9% in the group receiving the high dose and 87.1% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 86.7% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal. All 95% confidence intervals for the differences were within ±10 percentage points, indicating noninferiority. Similar results were found for low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (84.3%) versus high-dose radioiodine plus thyroid hormone withdrawal (87.6%) or high-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (90.2%). More patients in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group were hospitalized for at least 3 days (36.3% vs. 13.0%, P<0.001). The proportions of patients with adverse events were 21% in the low-dose group versus 33% in the high-dose group (P=0.007) and 23% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 30% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal (P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa was as effective as high-dose radioiodine, with a lower rate of adverse events. (Funded by Cancer Research UK; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00415233.).