Efficacy and Safety of Weekly Paclitaxel Plus Vistusertib vs Paclitaxel Alone in Patients With Platinum-Resistant Ovarian High-Grade Serous Carcinoma: The OCTOPUS Multicenter, Phase 2, Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with platinum-resistant or refractory ovarian high-grade serous carcinoma (PR-HGSC) have a poor prognosis and few therapeutic options. Preclinical studies support targeting PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling in this setting, and a phase 1 study of the dual mTORC1/mTORC2 inhibitor vistusertib with weekly paclitaxel showed activity. Objective: To evaluate whether the addition of vistusertib to weekly paclitaxel improves clinical outcomes in patients with PR-HGSC. Design, Setting, and Participants: This phase 2, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicenter randomized clinical trial recruited patients from UK cancer centers between January 2016 and March 2018. Patients with PR-HGSC of ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal origin and with measurable or evaluable disease (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.1 and/or Gynecological Cancer Intergroup cancer antigen 125 criteria) were eligible. There were no restrictions on number of lines of prior therapy. Data analysis was performed from May 2019 to January 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to weekly paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) plus oral vistusertib (50 mg twice daily) or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary end points included response rate, overall survival, and quality of life. Results: A total of 140 patients (median [range] age, 63 [36-86] years; 17.9% with platinum-refractory disease; 53.6% with ≥3 prior therapies) were randomized. In the paclitaxel plus vistusertib vs paclitaxel plus placebo groups, there was no difference in progression-free survival (median, 4.5 vs 4.1 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 80% CI, 0.67-1.07; 1-sided P = .18), overall survival (median, 9.7 vs 11.1 months; HR, 1.21; 80% CI, 0.91-1.60) or response rate (odds ratio, 0.86; 80% CI, 0.55-1.36). Grade 3 to 4 adverse events were 41.2% (weekly paclitaxel plus vistusertib) vs 36.7% (weekly paclitaxel plus placebo), and there was no difference in quality of life. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of weekly paclitaxel and dual mTORC1/2 inhibition in patients with PR-HGSC, vistusertib did not improve clinical activity of weekly paclitaxel. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16426935.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Biomarker-Selected, Phase II Clinical Trial of Maintenance Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibition With Rucaparib Following Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A DNA repair deficiency (DRD) phenotype exists within a subset of metastatic urothelial carcinomas (mUC) predicting benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy. We tested switch maintenance therapy with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor rucaparib, following chemotherapy, for DRD biomarker-positive mUC. METHODS: DRD biomarker-positive mUC patients, within 10 weeks of chemotherapy, and without cancer progression, were randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance rucaparib 600 mg twice a day orally, or placebo, until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analysis targeted a hazard ratio of 0.5 with a 20% one-sided α for this signal-seeking trial. PFS (RECIST 1.1) was compared between trial arms, by intention to treat, within a Cox model. RESULTS: Out of 248 patients, 74 (29.8%) were DRD biomarker-positive and 40 were randomly assigned. A total of 12 (60%) and 20 (100%) PFS events occurred in the rucaparib and placebo arms, respectively (median follow-up was 94.6 weeks in those still alive). Median PFS was 35.3 weeks (80% CI, 11.7 to 35.6) with rucaparib and 15.1 weeks (80% CI, 11.9 to 22.6) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53; 80% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; one-sided P = .07). In the safety population (n = 39) treatment-related adverse events were mostly low grade. Patients received a median duration of 10 rucaparib or six placebo cycles on treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (all grades) of fatigue (63.2% v 30.0%), nausea (36.8% v 5.0%), rash (21.1% v 0%), and raised alanine aminotransferase (57.9% v 10%) were more common with rucaparib. CONCLUSION: Maintenance rucaparib, following platinum-based chemotherapy, extended PFS in DRD biomarker-selected patients with mUC and was tolerable. Further investigation of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibition in selected patients with mUC is warranted.

Implementation of the Time-to-Event Continuous Reassessment Method Design in a Phase I Platform Trial Testing Novel Radiotherapy-Drug Combinations-CONCORDE.

PURPOSE: CONCORDE is the first phase I drug-radiotherapy (RT) combination platform in non-small-cell lung cancer, designed to assess multiple different DNA damage response inhibitors in combination with radical thoracic RT. Time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) methodology will inform dose escalation individually for each different DNA damage response inhibitor-RT combination and a randomized calibration arm will aid attribution of toxicities. We report in detail the novel statistical design and implementation of the TiTE-CRM in the CONCORDE trial. METHODS: Statistical parameters were calibrated following recommendations by Lee and Cheung. Simulations were performed to assess the operating characteristics of the chosen models and were written using modified code from the R package dfcrm. RESULTS: The results of the simulation work showed that the proposed statistical model setup can answer the research questions under a wide range of potential scenarios. The proposed models work well under varying levels of recruitment and with multiple adaptations to the original methodology. CONCLUSION: The results demonstrate how TiTE-CRM methodology may be used in practice in a complex dose-finding platform study. We propose that this novel phase I design has potential to overcome some of the logistical barriers that for many years have prevented timely development of novel drug-RT combinations.

A Road Map for Designing Phase I Clinical Trials of Radiotherapy-Novel Agent Combinations.

Radiotherapy has proven efficacy in a wide range of cancers. There is growing interest in evaluating radiotherapy-novel agent combinations and a drive to initiate this earlier in the clinical development of the novel agent, where the scientific rationale and preclinical evidence for a radiotherapy combination approach are high. Optimal design, delivery, and interpretation of studies are essential. In particular, the design of phase I studies to determine safety and dosing is critical to an efficient development strategy. There is significant interest in early-phase research among scientific and clinical communities over recent years, at a time when the scrutiny of the trial methodology has significantly increased. To enhance trial design, optimize safety, and promote efficient trial conduct, this position paper reviews the current phase I trial design landscape. Key design characteristics extracted from 37 methodology papers were used to define a road map and a design selection process for phase I radiotherapy-novel agent trials. Design selection is based on single- or dual-therapy dose escalation, dose-limiting toxicity categorization, maximum tolerated dose determination, subgroup evaluation, software availability, and design performance. Fifteen of the 37 designs were identified as being immediately accessible and relevant to radiotherapy-novel agent phase I trials. Applied examples of using the road map are presented. Developing these studies is intensive, highlighting the need for funding and statistical input early in the trial development to ensure appropriate design and implementation from the outset. The application of this road map will improve the design of phase I radiotherapy-novel agent combination trials, enabling a more efficient development pathway.

Serum Proteomics and Plasma Fibulin-3 in Differentiation of Mesothelioma From Asbestos-Exposed Controls and Patients With Other Pleural Diseases.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is difficult to diagnose. An accurate blood biomarker could prompt specialist referral or be deployed in future screening. In earlier retrospective studies, SOMAscan proteomics (Somalogic, Boulder, CO) and fibulin-3 seemed highly accurate, but SOMAscan has not been validated prospectively and subsequent fibulin-3 data have been contradictory. METHODS: A multicenter prospective observational study was performed in 22 centers, generating a large intention-to-diagnose cohort. Blood sampling, processing, and diagnostic assessment were standardized, including a 1-year follow-up. Plasma fibulin-3 was measured using two enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (CloudClone [used in previous studies] and BosterBio, Pleasanton, CA). Serum proteomics was measured using the SOMAscan assay. Diagnostic performance (sensitivity at 95% specificity, area under the curve [AUC]) was benchmarked against serum mesothelin (Mesomark, Fujirebio Diagnostics, Malvern, PA). Biomarkers were correlated against primary tumor volume, inflammatory markers, and asbestos exposure. RESULTS: A total of 638 patients with suspected pleural malignancy (SPM) and 110 asbestos-exposed controls (AECs) were recruited. SOMAscan reliably differentiated MPM from AECs (75% sensitivity, 88.2% specificity, validation cohort AUC 0.855) but was not useful in patients with differentiating non-MPM SPM. Fibulin-3 (by BosterBio after failed CloudClone validation) revealed 7.4% and 11.9% sensitivity at 95% specificity in MPM versus non-MPM SPM and AECs, respectively (associated AUCs 0.611 [0.557-0.664], p = 0.0015) and 0.516 [0.443-0.589], p = 0.671), both inferior to mesothelin. SOMAscan proteins correlated with inflammatory markers but not with asbestos exposure. Neither biomarker correlated with tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: SOMAscan may prove useful as a future screening test for MPM in asbestos-exposed persons. Neither fibulin-3 nor SOMAscan should be used for diagnosis or pathway stratification.

Metronomic oral cyclophosphamide in relapsed ovarian cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the clinical activity of metronomic cyclophosphamide in a population of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer, and to identify predictors of clinical response. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed all patients treated at our institution with oral metronomic cyclophosphamide for relapsed ovarian cancer between January 2012 and December 2016. These were identified from electronic chemotherapy prescription records. The primary endpoint was response rate by combined Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) criteria. Data on patient demographics, previous therapies, platinum resistance, germline BRCA1/2 (gBRCA1/2) status, disease response by radiological or cancer antigen 125 (CA125) criteria alone, adverse events secondary to metronomic cyclophosphamide treatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: 50 out of 68 patients treated with oral metronomic cyclophosphamide were evaluable for disease response. By combination criteria (radiological plus CA125), complete response was 0%, partial response 32%, stable disease 16%, and progressive disease 52%. In the intention-to-treat population (n=68), progression-free survival and overall survival were 2.6 months and 6 months, respectively. Having a gBRCA1/2 mutation reduced the risk of disease progression by radiological criteria (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.008 to 0.67, p=0.02), and patients with gBRCA1/2 mutations had improved progression-free survival (7.9 vs 2.5 months, HR 0.4, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.74, p=0.003) and overall survival (15.5 vs 6 months, HR 0.49, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.85, p=0.02) with metronomic cyclophosphamide when compared with patients without gBRCA1/2 mutations (or unknown gBRCA1/2 status). CONCLUSION: Oral metronomic cyclophosphamide showed a clinical benefit in 48% of patients with recurrent ovarian cancer. gBRCA1/2 status can be an independent predictor of response.

Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone followed by carfilzomib maintenance for patients with multiple myeloma after one prior therapy: results from a multicenter, phase II, randomized, controlled trial (MUKfive).

The proteasome inhibitors, carfilzomib and bortezomib, are widely used to treat myeloma but head-to-head comparisons have produced conflicting results. We compared the activity of these proteasome inhibitors in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (KCd vs. VCd) in second-line treatment using fixed duration therapy and evaluated the efficacy of carfilzomib maintenance. MUKfive was a phase II controlled, parallel group trial that randomized patients (2:1) to KCd (n=201) or VCd (n=99); responding patients on carfilzomib were randomized to maintenance carfilzomib (n=69) or no further treatment (n=72). Primary endpoints were: (i) very good partial response (non-inferiority, odds ratio [OR] 0.8) at 24 weeks, and (ii) progression-free survival. More participants achieved a very good partial response or better with carfilzomib than with bortezomib (40.2% vs. 31.9%, OR=1.48, 90% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95, 2.31; non-inferior), with a trend for particular benefit in patients with adverse-risk disease. KCd was associated with higher overall response (partial response or better, 84.0% vs. 68.1%, OR=2.72, 90% CI: 1.62, 4.55, P=0.001). Neuropathy (grade ≥3 or ≥2 with pain) was more common with bortezomib (19.8% vs. 1.5%, P<0.0001), while grade ≥3 cardiac events and hypertension were only reported in the KCd arm (3.6% each). The median progression-free survival in the KCd arm was 11.7 months vs. 10.2 months in the VCd arm (hazard ratio [HR]=0.95, 80% CI: 0.77, 1.18). Carfilzomib maintenance was associated with longer progression-free survival, median 11.9 months vs. 5.6 months for no maintenance (HR 0.59, 80% CI: 0.46-0.77, P=0.0086). When used as fixed duration therapy in first relapase, KCd is at least as effective as VCd, and carfilzomib is an effective maintenance agent. This trial was registered with International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) identifier: ISRCTN17354232.

MUKnine OPTIMUM protocol: a screening study to identify high-risk patients with multiple myeloma suitable for novel treatment approaches combined with a phase II study evaluating optimised combination of biological therapy in newly diagnosed high-risk multiple myeloma and plasma cell leukaemia.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell tumour with over 5800 new cases each year in the UK. The introduction of biological therapies has improved outcomes for the majority of patients with MM, but in approximately 20% of patients the tumour is characterised by genetic changes which confer a significantly poorer prognosis, generally termed high-risk (HR) MM. It is important to diagnose these genetic changes early and identify more effective first-line treatment options for these patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Myeloma UK nine OPTIMUM trial (MUKnine) evaluates novel treatment strategies for patients with HRMM. Patients with suspected or newly diagnosed MM, fit for intensive therapy, are offered participation in a tumour genetic screening protocol (MUKnine a), with primary endpoint proportion of patients with molecular screening performed within 8 weeks. Patients identified as molecularly HR are invited into the phase II, single-arm, multicentre trial (MUKnine b) investigating an intensive treatment schedule comprising bortezomib, lenalidomide, daratumumab, low-dose cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone, with single high-dose melphalan and autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) followed by combination consolidation and maintenance therapy. MUKnine b primary endpoints are minimal residual disease (MRD) at day 100 post-ASCT and progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include response, safety and quality of life. The trial uses a Bayesian decision rule to determine if this treatment strategy is sufficiently active for further study. Patients identified as not having HR disease receive standard treatment and are followed up in a cohort study. Exploratory studies include longitudinal whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for imaging MRD testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval London South East Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/0022, 17/LO/0023). Results of studies will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16847817, May 2017; Pre-results.

Glasgow Early Treatment Arm Favirpiravir (GETAFIX) for adults with early stage COVID-19: A structured summary of a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The GETAFIX trial will test the hypothesis that favipiravir is a more effective treatment for COVID-19 infection in patients who have early stage disease, compared to current standard of care. This study will also provide an important opportunity to investigate the safety and tolerability of favipiravir, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of this drug and mechanisms of resistance in the context of COVID-19 infection, as well as the effect of favipiravir on hospitalisation duration and the post COVID-19 health and psycho-social wellbeing of patients recruited to the study. TRIAL DESIGN: GETAFIX is an open label, parallel group, two arm phase II/III randomised trial with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. Patients will be randomised to one of two arms and the primary endpoint will assess the superiority of favipiravir plus standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone. PARTICIPANTS: This trial will recruit adult patients with confirmed positive valid COVID-19 test, who are not pregnant or breastfeeding and have no prior major co-morbidities. This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Patients must meet all of the following criteria: 1. Age 16 or over at time of consent 2. Exhibiting symptoms associated with COVID-19 3. Positive for SARS-CoV-2 on valid COVID-19 test 4. Point 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity scale at time of randomisation. (Asymptomatic with positive valid COVID-19 test, Symptomatic Independent, Symptomatic assistance needed, Hospitalized, with no oxygen therapy) 5. Have >=10% risk of death should they be admitted to hospital as defined by the ISARIC4C risk index: https://isaric4c.net/risk 6. Able to provide written informed consent 7. Negative pregnancy test (women of childbearing potential*) 8. Able to swallow oral medication Patients will be excluded from the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Renal impairment requiring, or likely to require, dialysis or haemofiltration 2. Pregnant or breastfeeding 3. Of child bearing potential (women), or with female partners of child bearing potential (men) who do not agree to use adequate contraceptive measures for the duration of the study and for 3 months after the completion of study treatment 4. History of hereditary xanthinuria 5. Other patients judged unsuitable by the Principal Investigator or sub-Investigator 6. Known hypersensitivity to favipiravir, its metabolites or any excipients 7. Severe co-morbidities including: patients with severe hepatic impairment, defined as: • greater than Child-Pugh grade A • AST or ALT > 5 x ULN • AST or ALT >3 x ULN and Total Bilirubin > 2xULN 8. More than 96 hours since first positive COVID-19 test sample was taken 9. Unable to discontinue contra-indicated concomitant medications This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomised to the experimental arm of GETAFIX will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician plus favipiravir. These patients will receive a loading dose of favipiravir on day 1 of 3600mg (1800mg 12 hours apart). On days 2-10, patients in the experimental arm will receive a maintenance dose of favipiravir of 800mg 12 hours apart (total of 18 doses). Patients randomised to the control arm of the GETAFIX trial will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome being assessed in the GETAFIX trial is the efficacy of favipiravir in addition to standard treatment in patients with COVID-19 in reducing the severity of disease compared to standard treatment alone. Disease severity will be assessed using WHO COVID 10 point ordinal severity scale at day 15 +/- 48 hours. All randomised participants will be followed up until death or 60 days post-randomisation (whichever is sooner). RANDOMISATION: Patients will be randomised 1:1 to the experimental versus control arm using computer generated random sequence allocation. A minimisation algorithm incorporating a random component will be used to allocate patients. The factors used in the minimisation will be: site, age (16-50/51-70/71+), history of hypertension or currently obsess (BMI>30 or obesity clinically evident; yes/no), 7 days duration of symptoms (yes/no/unknown), sex (male/female), WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity score at baseline (1/2or 3/4). BLINDING (MASKING): No blinding will be used in the GETAFIX trial. Both participants and those assessing outcomes will be aware of treatment allocation. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): In total, 302 patients will be randomised to the GETAFIX trial: 151 to the control arm and 151 to the experimental arm. There will be an optional consent form for patients who may want to contribute to more frequent PK and PD sampling. The maximum number of patients who will undergo this testing will be sixteen, eight males and eight females. This option will be offered to all patients who are being treated in hospital at the time of taking informed consent, however only patients in the experimental arm of the trial will be able to undergo this testing. TRIAL STATUS: The current GETAFIX protocol is version 4.0 12th September 2020. GETAFIX opened to recruitment on 26th October 2020 and will recruit patients over a period of approximately six months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GETAFIX was registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database on 15th April 2020; Reference number 2020-001904-41 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001904-41/GB ). GETAFIX was registered on ISRCTN on 7th September 2020; Reference number ISRCTN31062548 ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN31062548 ). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (see Additional file 2).

The MUK eight protocol: a randomised phase II trial of cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone in combination with ixazomib, in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) patients who have relapsed after treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide and a proteasome inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell tumour with approximately 5500 new cases in the UK each year. Ixazomib is a next generation inhibitor of the 20S proteasome and is thought to be an effective treatment for those who have relapsed from bortezomib. The combination of cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CD) is a recognised treatment option for patients with relapsed refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) who have relapsed after treatment with bortezomib and lenalidomide, whilst also often being combined with newer proteasome inhibitors. The most apparent combination for ixazomib is therefore with CD. METHODS: MUK eight is a randomised, controlled, open, parallel group, multi-centre phase II trial that will recruit patients with RRMM who have relapsed after treatment with thalidomide, lenalidomide, and a proteasome inhibitor. The primary objective of the trial is to evaluate whether ixazomib in combination with cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (ICD) has improved clinical activity compared to CD in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary objectives include comparing toxicity profiles and the activity and cost-effectiveness of both treatments. Since opening, the trial has been amended to allow all participants who experience disease progression (as per the IMWG criteria) on the CD arm to subsequently switch to receive ICD treatment, once progression has been confirmed with two clinical members of the Trial Management Group (TMG). This 'switch' phase of the study is exploratory and will assess second progression-free survival measured from randomisation to second disease progression (PFS2) and progression-free survival from the point of switching to second disease progression (PFS Switch) in participants who switch from CD to ICD treatment. DISCUSSION: Development of ixazomib offers the opportunity to further investigate the value of proteasome inhibition through oral administration in the treatment of RRMM. Previous studies investigating the safety and efficacy of ICD in patients with RRMM demonstrate a toxicity profile consistent with ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, whilst the combination showed possible activity in RRMM patients. Further investigation of the anti-tumour effect of this drug in RRMM patients is therefore warranted, especially since no trials comparing CD with ICD have been completed at present. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN58227268 . Registered on 26 August 2015.

CONCORDE: A phase I platform study of novel agents in combination with conventional radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for 'gold standard' treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding.

Practicalities in running early-phase trials using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) for interventions with long toxicity periods using two radiotherapy oncology trials as examples.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of model-based designs for dose-finding studies such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) is now becoming more commonplace amongst clinicians, statisticians and trial management staff. In some settings toxicities can occur a long time after treatment has finished, resulting in extremely long, interrupted, CRM design trials. The Time-to-Event CRM (TiTE-CRM), a modification to the original CRM, accounts for the timing of late-onset toxicities and results in shorter trial duration. In this article, we discuss how to design and deliver a trial using this method, from the grant application stage through to dissemination, using two radiotherapy trials as examples. METHODS: The TiTE-CRM encapsulates the dose-toxicity relationship with a statistical model. The model incorporates observed toxicities and uses a weight to account for the proportion of completed follow-up of participants without toxicity. This model uses all available data to determine the next participant's dose and subsequently declare the maximum tolerated dose. We focus on two trials designed by the authors to illustrate practical issues when designing, setting up, and running such studies. RESULTS: In setting up a TiTE-CRM trial, model parameters need to be defined and the time element involved might cause complications, therefore looking at operating characteristics through simulations is essential. At the grant application stage, we suggest resources to fund statisticians' time before funding is awarded and make recommendations for the level of detail to include in funding applications. While running the trial, close contact of all involved staff is required as a dose decision is made each time a participant is recruited. We suggest ways of capturing data in a timely manner and give example code in R for design and delivery of the trial. Finally, we touch upon dissemination issues while the trial is running and upon completion. CONCLUSION: Model-based designs can be complex. We hope this paper will help clinical trial teams to demystify the conduct of TiTE-CRM trials and be a starting point for using this methodology in practice.

Associations Between Serum Bone Biomarkers in Early Breast Cancer and Development of Bone Metastasis: Results From the AZURE (BIG01/04) Trial.

Background: Adjuvant therapies can prevent/delay bone metastasis development in breast cancer. We investigated whether serum bone turnover markers in early disease have clinical utility in identifying patients with a high risk of developing bone metastasis. Methods: Markers of bone formation (N-terminal propeptide of type-1 collagen [P1NP]) and bone resorption (C-telopeptide of type-1 collagen [CTX], pyridinoline cross-linked carboxy-terminal telopeptide of type-1 collagen [1-CTP]) were measured in baseline (pretreatment blood samples from 872 patients from a large randomized trial of adjuvant zoledronic acid (AZURE-ISRCTN79831382) in early breast cancer. Cox proportional hazards regression and cumulative incidence functions (adjusted for factors having a statistically significant effect on outcome) were used to investigate prognostic and predictive associations between recurrence events, bone marker levels, and clinical variables. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: When considered as continuous variables (log transformed), P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP were each prognostic for future bone recurrence at any time (P = .006, P = .009, P = .008, respectively). Harrell's c-indices were a P1NP of 0.57 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.51 to 0.63), CTX of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.51 to 0.62), and 1-CTP of 0.57 (95% CI = 0.52 to 0.63). In categorical analyses based on the normal range, high baseline P1NP (>70 ng/mL) and CTX (>0.299 ng/mL), but not 1-CTP (>4.2 ng/mL), were also prognostic for future bone recurrence (P = .03, P = .03, P = .10, respectively). None of the markers were prognostic for overall distant recurrence; that is, they were bone metastasis specific, and none of the markers were predictive of treatment benefit from zoledronic acid. Conclusions: Serum P1NP, CTX, and 1-CTP are clinically useful, easily measured markers that show good prognostic ability (though low-to-moderate discrimination) for bone-specific recurrence and are worthy of further study.

Reproductive hormone analyses and effects of adjuvant zoledronic acid in early breast cancer - An AZURE (BIG 01/04) sub-study.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant bisphosphonates have been shown to improve disease outcomes in early breast cancer in women who are postmenopausal at the start of treatment. We explored the influence of pretreatment serum levels of reproductive hormones in the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis from a subset of patients included in the AZURE trial to investigate their impact on disease recurrence and whether reproductive hormone measurements are of value in selecting patients for treatment with adjuvant zoledronic acid.Patients and methods; The AZURE trial is an academic, multi-centre, international phase III trial that randomised patients to standard adjuvant therapy (chemotherapy and/or endocrine therapy)±intravenous zoledronic acid, 4 mg for 5 years. Serum from 865 patients taken at randomisation was stored at -80 °C prior to central batch analysis for inhibin A, oestradiol and follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). We assessed the clinical value of pretreatment hormone levels for predicting invasive disease free survival (IDFS), skeletal recurrence and distant recurrence and response to treatment with zoledronic acid. RESULTS: Oestradiol in the postmenopausal range (<50 pmol/l) was associated with a significantly shorter IDFS (HR 1.36 95%CI: 1.05-1.78 p=0.022), predominantly due to distant recurrence (HR 1.33 95%CI: 0.98-1.81 p=0.065), compared to oestradiol ≥50pmol/l. In contrast, FSH in the postmenopausal range (>26 IU/l) was associated with a longer time to bone as first recurrence (HR 0.66 95%CI: 0.41-1.04 p=0.072) compared to an FSH ≤26 IU/l. When all 3 hormone levels were within the assay specified postmenopausal range, a trend to improved IDFS was seen with addition of zoledronic acid in biochemically postmenopausal women only (postmenopausal HR=0.81; 95%CI: 0.54-1.22, non-postmenopausal HR=0.99; 95%CI: 0.69-1.39) with risk reductions that mirrored the results of the main AZURE study, although the interaction between menopausal status and treatment effect was not statistically significant (p=0.47). CONCLUSION: Oestradiol and FSH may influence the pattern of disease recurrence with postmenopausal levels possibly creating a less conducive environment for the formation of bone metastases, therefore disseminated tumour cells could seek alternative niches outside of bone. Biochemical evaluation of a panel of reproductive hormones may be helpful to assist selection of patients for adjuvant zoledronic acid when menopausal status is unknown.

The MUK five protocol: a phase II randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi-centre trial of carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCD) vs. cyclophosphamide, bortezomib (Velcade) and dexamethasone (CVD) for first relapse and primary refractory multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a plasma cell tumour with an annual incidence in the UK of approximately 40-50 per million i.e. about 4500 new cases per annum. The triple combination cyclophosphamide, bortezomib (Velcade®) and dexamethasone (CVD) is an effective regimen at relapse and has emerged in recent years as the standard therapy at first relapse in the UK. Carfilzomib has good activity as a single agent in the relapsed setting, and it is expected that efficacy will be improved when used in combination with dexamethasone and cyclophosphamide. METHODS: MUK Five is a phase II open label, randomised, controlled, parallel group, multi-centre trial that will compare the activity of carfilzomib, cyclophosphamide and dexamethasone (CCD) with that of CVD, given over an equivalent treatment period (24 weeks), in participants with multiple myeloma at first relapse, or refractory to no more than 1 line of treatment. In addition, the study also aims to assess the utility of a maintenance schedule of carfilzomib in these participants. The primary objective of the trial is to assess whether CCD provides non-inferior activity in terms of ≥ VGPR rates at 24 weeks, and whether the addition of maintenance treatment with carfilzomib to CCD provides superior activity in terms of progression-free survival, as compared to CCD with no maintenance. Secondary objectives include comparing toxicity profiles, further summarizing and comparing the activity of the different treatment arms and analysis of the effect of each treatment arm on minimal residual disease status. DISCUSSION: The development of carfilzomib offers the opportunity to further explore the anti-tumour efficacy of proteasome inhibition and, based on the available evidence, it is important and timely to obtain data on the activity, toxicity and tolerability of this drug. In contrast to ongoing phase III trials, this phase II trial has a unique subset of participants diagnosed with multiple myeloma at first relapse or refractory to no more than 1 line of treatment and will also evaluate the utility of maintenance with carfilzomib for up to 18 months and investigate minimal residual disease status to provide information on depth of response and the prognostic impact thereof. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered under ISRCTN17354232, December 2012.

Lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR): dosimetric considerations for chest wall toxicity.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate chest wall pain in patients with peripheral early stage lung cancer treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), and to identify factors predictive of Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events Grade 2 + chest wall pain. METHODS: Patients who received 55 Gy in five fractions were included. A chest wall structure was retrospectively defined on planning scans, and chest wall dosimetry and tumour-related factors recorded. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors predictive of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. RESULTS: 182 patients and 187 tumours were included. There were 20 (10.9%) episodes of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. Multivariate logistic regression demonstrated that the maximum dose received by 1 cm(3) of chest wall (Dmax1 cm(3)) and tumour size were significant predictors of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain [Dmax1 cm(3) odds ratio : 1.104, 95% confidence interval : 1.012-1.204, p = 0.025; tumour size (mm) odds ratio : 1.080, 95% confidence interval : 1.026-1.136, p = 0.003]. This model was an adequate fit to the data (Hosmer and Lemeshow test non-significant) and a fair discriminator for chest wall pain (area under receiver-operating characteristic curve: 0.74). Using the multivariate logistic regression model, parameters for Dmax1 cm(3) are provided, which predict <10% and <20% risks of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain for different tumour sizes. CONCLUSION: Grade 2+ chest wall pain is an uncommon side effect of lung SABR. Larger tumour size and increasing Dmax1 cm(3) are significant predictors of ≥Grade 2 chest wall pain. When planning lung SABR, it is prudent to try to avoid hot volumes in the chest wall, particularly for larger tumours. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This article demonstrates that Grade 2 or greater chest wall pain following lung SABR is more common when the tumour is larger in size and the Dmax1 cm(3) of the chest wall is higher. When planning lung SABR, the risk of chest wall pain may be reduced if maximum doses are minimized, particularly for larger tumours.

Adjuvant zoledronic acid in patients with early breast cancer: final efficacy analysis of the AZURE (BIG 01/04) randomised open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of adjuvant bisphosphonates in early breast cancer is uncertain. We therefore did a large randomised trial to investigate the effect of the adjuvant use of zoledronic acid on disease-free survival (DFS) in high-risk patients with early breast cancer. METHODS: In the AZURE trial, an open-label, international, multicentre, randomised, controlled, parallel-group phase 3 trial, women (age ≥18 years) with stage II or III breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) by a central automated 24-h computer-generated telephone minimisation system (balanced for number of involved axillary lymph nodes, tumour stage, oestrogen receptor status, type and timing of systemic therapy, menopausal status, statin use, and treatment centre) to receive standard adjuvant systemic treatment alone (control group) or with 4 mg intravenous zoledronic acid every 3-4 weeks for six doses, then every 3 months for eight doses, followed by every 6 months for five doses, for a total of 5 years of treatment. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary endpoints were invasive DFS (IDFS), overall survival, time to bone metastases, time to distant recurrence, and subgroup analyses of variables included in the randomisation. All patients have completed study treatment. Results from the intention-to-treat final analysis of this fully recruited study are presented after a median follow-up of 84 months (IQR 66-93). This final efficacy analysis was planned to take place after 940 DFS events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00072020. FINDINGS: 3360 women were recruited from 174 centres in seven countries between Sept 4, 2003, and Feb 16, 2006. The number of DFS events did not differ between groups: 493 in the control group and 473 in the zoledronic acid group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·82-1·06; p=0·30). IDFS (HR 0·93, 95% CI 0·82-1·05; p=0·22), overall survival (0·93, 0·81-1·08; p=0·37), and distant recurrences (0·93, 0·81-1·07; p=0·29) were much the same in both groups. Zoledronic acid reduced the development of bone metastases, both as a first event (HR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63-0·96; p=0·020) and at any time during follow-up (0·81, 0·68-0·97; p=0·022). The effects of zoledronic acid on DFS were not affected by oestrogen-receptor status. However, zoledronic acid improved IDFS in those who were over 5 years since menopause at trial entry (n=1041; HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·63-0·96) but not in all other (premenopause, perimenopause, and unknown status) menopausal groups (n=2318; HR 1·03, 95% CI 0·89-1·20). 33 cases of suspected osteonecrosis of the jaw have been reported, with 26 confirmed on central review, all in the zoledronic acid group (1·7%, 95% CI 1·0-2·4). INTERPRETATION: These results suggest no overall benefit from the addition of zoledronic acid to standard adjuvant treatments for early breast cancer. However, zoledronic acid does reduce the development of bone metastases and, for women with established menopause, improved disease outcomes. FUNDING: Novartis Global and NIHR Cancer Research Network.