Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.

First UK patient cohort treated with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy for primary kidney cancer.

Aims: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a promising non-invasive ablative treatment option. A prospective interventional clinical trial published showed that treatment was feasible and well tolerated. We present the first single-institution UK cohort of patients with primary RCC receiving protocol-based SABR with prospective follow-up. We also present a protocol that could be used to facilitate more widespread use of the treatment. Materials and methods: Nineteen biopsy-proven primary RCC patients were treated with either 42 Gy in three fractions on alternate days or 26 Gy in a single fraction based on predefined eligibility criteria using either Linear Accelerator or CyberKnife platform. Prospective toxicity data using CTCAE V4.0 and outcome data such as estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) and tumour response using CT thorax, abdomen and pelvis (CT-TAP) were collected at 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months post treatment. Results: The 19 patients had a median age of 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] 64-82 years) and 47.4% were males, and they had a median tumour size of 4.5 cm (IQR 3.8-5.2 cm). Single and fractionated treatment was well tolerated and there were no significant acute side effects. The mean drop from baseline in eGFR at 6 months was 5.4 ml/min and that at 12 months was 8.7 ml/min. The overall local control rate at both 6 and 12 months was 94.4%. Overall survival at 6 and 12 months was 94.7% and 78.3%, respectively. After a median follow-up of 17 months, three patients experienced a Grade 3 toxicity, which was resolved with conservative management. Conclusion: SABR for primary RCC is a safe and feasible treatment for medically unfit patients, which can be delivered in most UK cancer centres using standard Linear Accelerator as well as CyberKnife platforms.

Time for Brain Medicine.

Unprecedented knowledge of the brain is inevitably contributing to the convergence of neurology and psychiatry. However, clinical training continues to follow a divergent approach established in the 19th century. An etiological approach will continue to shift more psychiatric patients to the care of neurologists who are untrained in psychiatric management. At the same time, this new era of diagnostic biomarkers and neuroscience-based precision treatments requires skills not readily available to those trained in psychiatry. The challenges in training the next generation of doctors include establishing competence involving aspects of the whole brain, fostering the subspecialized expertise needed to remain current, and developing programs that are feasible in duration and practical in implementation. A new 4-year residency training program proposed in this article could replace existing residency programs. The program includes 2 years of common and urgent training in various aspects of neurology and psychiatry followed by 2 years of elective subspecialty tracks. The concept is similar to internal medicine residencies and fellowships. No changes to existing departmental structures are necessary. In concert with the emerging biological approach to the brain, "brain medicine" is proposed as a new name to denote this practice in the simplest terms: a focus on all aspects of the brain.

The DANTE trial protocol: a randomised phase III trial to evaluate the Duration of ANti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody Treatment in patients with metastatic mElanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is revolutionising the treatment of patients diagnosed with melanoma and other cancers. The first immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab (targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), showed a survival advantage over standard chemotherapy. Subsequently the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were shown to be more effective than ipilimumab. Ipilimumab combined with nivolumab gives an incremental gain in overall survival compared with nivolumab alone but increases the risk of severe, potentially life-threatening toxicities. In contrast to ipilimumab monotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibodies are licensed to be continued until disease progression. Follow-up of patients recruited to the first trials evaluating 2 years of pembrolizumab showed that three-quarters of responding patients continue responding after stopping treatment. Suggestive of early response, we hypothesised that continuing anti-PD-1 treatment beyond 1 year in progression-free patients may be unnecessary and so designed the DANTE trial. METHODS: DANTE is a multicentre, randomised, phase III, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic (unresectable stage III and stage IV) melanoma. It uses a two-stage recruitment strategy, registering patients before they complete 1 year of first-line anti-PD-1 +/- CTLA-4 therapy and randomising eligible patients who have received 12 months of treatment and are progression-free at 1 year. At randomisation, 1208 patients are assigned (1:1) to either 1) continue anti-PD-1 treatment until disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity/ for at least 2 years in the absence of disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity or 2) to stop treatment. Randomisation stratifies for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and then, 6-monthly for up to 4-years. Secondary outcomes collected at all timepoints include overall survival, response-rate and duration and safety, with quality of life and cost-effectiveness outcomes collected 3-monthly for up to 18-months. Sub-studies include a qualitative analysis of patient acceptance of randomisation and sample collection to inform future translational studies into response/ toxicity biomarkers. DISCUSSION: DANTE is a unique prospective trial investigating the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes will inform future use of these high burden drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15837212 , 31 July 2018.

Efficacy of Reduced-Intensity Chemotherapy With Oxaliplatin and Capecitabine on Quality of Life and Cancer Control Among Older and Frail Patients With Advanced Gastroesophageal Cancer: The GO2 Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older and/or frail patients are underrepresented in landmark cancer trials. Tailored research is needed to address this evidence gap. Objective: The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty. Interventions: There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. Main Outcomes and Measures: First, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival. Results: A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN44687907.

NET-02 trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised, parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC).

INTRODUCTION: Poorly differentiated (PD), extrapulmonary (EP), neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are rare but aggressive neuroendocrine neoplasms. First-line treatment for advanced disease is an etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy combination. There is no established second-line treatment for patients with PD-EP-NEC, and this is an area of unmet need. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NET-02 is a UK, multicentre, randomised (1:1), parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI)/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive PD-EP-NEC. One hundred and two eligible participants will be randomised to receive either nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid or docetaxel. The primary objective is to determine the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The secondary objectives of this study are to determine PFS, overall survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and whether neuron-specific enolase is predictive of treatment response. If either treatment is found to have a 6-month PFS rate of at least 25%, that treatment will be considered for a phase III trial. If both treatments meet this target, prespecified selection criteria will be applied to establish which treatment to take forward. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from the Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (reference no. 18/NW/0031) and clinical trial authorisation from the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and uploaded to the European Union Clinical Trials Register. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN10996604, NCT03837977, EudraCT Number: 2017-002453-11.

Nilotinib Effects on Safety, Tolerability, and Potential Biomarkers in Parkinson Disease: A Phase 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: This study evaluated nilotinib safety and its effects on biomarkers as a potential disease-modifying drug in Parkinson disease. Objectives: To assess nilotinib effects on safety and pharmacokinetics and measure the change in exploratory biomarkers in patients with moderately severe Parkinson disease. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-center, phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with 300 patients approached in clinic; of these, 200 declined to participate, 100 were screened, 25 were excluded, and 75 were randomized 1:1:1 into placebo; nilotinib, 150-mg; or nilotinib, 300-mg groups. Recruitment started on May 17, 2017, and ended April 28, 2018, and follow-up ended August 10, 2019. Parkinson disease was confirmed according to the UK Brain Bank diagnostic criteria and symptoms were stabilized with use of optimal levodopa and/or dopamine agonists and other medications used in Parkinson disease. Interventions: Nilotinib vs placebo, administered orally once daily for 12 months followed by a 3-month washout period. Main Outcomes and Measures: It was hypothesized that nilotinib is safe and can be detected in the cerebrospinal fluid, where it alters exploratory biomarkers via inhibition of Abelson tyrosine kinase and potentially improves clinical outcomes. Results: Of the 75 patients included in the study, 55 were men (73.3%); mean (SD) age was 68.4 (8.2) years. Doses of 150 or 300 mg of nilotinib were reasonably safe, although more serious adverse events were detected in the nilotinib (150 mg: 6 [24%]; 300 mg: 12 [48%]) vs placebo (4 [16%]) groups. The 150-mg nilotinib group showed an increase in cerebrospinal fluid levels of the dopamine metabolites homovanillic acid (159.80nM; 90% CI, 7.04-312.60nM; P = .04) and 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (4.87nM; 90% CI, 1.51-8.23nM; P = .01), and the 300-mg nilotinib group showed an increase in 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (7.52nM; 90% CI, 2.35-12.69nM; P = .01). The nilotinib 150-mg but not the nilotinib 300-mg group demonstrated a reduction of α-synuclein oligomers (-0.04 pg/mL; 90% CI, -0.08 to 0.01 pg/mL; P = .03). A significant reduction of hyperphosphorylated tau levels was seen in the nilotinib 150-mg (-10.04 pg/mL; 90% CI, -17.41 to -2.67 pg/mL; P = .01) and nilotinib 300-mg (-12.05 pg/mL; 90% CI, -19.21 to -4.90 pg/mL; P = .01) groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, nilotinib appeared to be reasonably safe and detectable in the cerebrospinal fluid. Exploratory biomarkers were altered in response to nilotinib. Taken together, these data will guide the development of a phase 3 study to investigate the effects of nilotinib therapy in patients with Parkinson disease. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02954978.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single dose Nilotinib in individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Nilotinib is a broad-based tyrosine kinase inhibitor with the highest affinity to inhibit Abelson (c-Abl) and discoidin domain receptors (DDR1/2). Preclinical evidence indicates that Nilotinib reduces the level of brain alpha-synuclein and attenuates inflammation in models of Parkinson's disease (PD). We previously showed that Nilotinib penetrates the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and potentially improves clinical outcomes in individuals with PD and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). We performed a physiologically based population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (popPK/PD) study to determine the effects of Nilotinib in a cohort of 75 PD participants. Participants were randomized (1:1:1:1:1) into five groups (n = 15) and received open-label random single dose (RSD) 150:200:300:400 mg Nilotinib vs placebo. Plasma and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) were collected at 1, 2, 3, and 4 hours after Nilotinib administration. The results show that Nilotinib enters the brain in a dose-independent manner and 200 mg Nilotinib increases the level of 3,4-Dihydroxyphenylacetic acid (DOPAC) and homovanillic acid (HVA), suggesting alteration to dopamine metabolism. Nilotinib significantly reduces plasma total alpha-synuclein and appears to reduce CSF oligomeric: total alpha-synuclein ratio. Furthermore, Nilotinib significantly increases the CSF level of triggering receptors on myeloid cells (TREM)-2, suggesting an anti-inflammatory effect. Taken together, 200 mg Nilotinib appears to be an optimal single dose that concurrently reduces inflammation and engages surrogate disease biomarkers, including dopamine metabolism and alpha-synuclein.

Palaeoproteomic Profiling of Conservation Layers on a 14th Century Italian Wall Painting.

Ahead of display, a non-original layer was observed on the surface of a fragment of a wall painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti (active 1319, died 1348/9). FTIR analysis suggested proteinaceous content. Mass spectrometry was used to better characterise this layer and revealed two protein components: sheep and cow glue and chicken and duck egg white. Analysis of post-translational modifications detected several photo-oxidation products, which suggest that the egg experienced prolonged exposure to UV light and was likely applied long before the glue layer. Additionally, glycation products detected may indicate naturally occurring glycoprotein degradation or reaction with a carbohydrate material such as starch, identified by ATR-FTIR in a cross-section of a sample taken from the painting. Palaeoproteomics is shown to provide detailed characterisation of organic layers associated with mural paintings and therefore aids reconstruction of the conservation history of these objects.

Addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (tAnGo): final 10-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel. METHODS: tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546). FINDINGS: Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10-10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62-67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86-1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic renal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks. METHODS/DESIGN: The STAR trial is an NIHR HTA-funded UK pragmatic randomised phase II/III clinical trial in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either a sunitinib CCS or a DFIS. The overall aim of the trial is to determine whether a DFIS is non-inferior, in terms of 2-year overall survival (OS) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) (averaged over treatment and follow up), compared to a CCS. The QALY primary endpoint was selected to assess whether any detriment in terms of OS could be balanced with improvements in quality of life (QoL). This is a complex trial with a number of design challenges, and to address these issues a feasibility stage is incorporated into the trial design. Predetermined recruitment (stage A) and efficacy (stage B) intermediary endpoints must be met to allow continuation to the overall phase III trial (stage C). An integral qualitative patient preference and understanding study will occur alongside the feasibility stage to investigate patients' feelings regarding participation or non-participation in the trial. DISCUSSION: The optimal duration of continuing sunitinib in advanced RCC is unknown. Novel targeted therapies do not always have the same constraints to treatment duration as standard chemotherapeutic agents and currently there are no randomised data comparing different treatment durations. Incorporating planned treatment breaks has the potential to improve QoL and cost effectiveness, hopefully without significant detriment on OS, as has been demonstrated in other cancer types with other treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN 06473203.

An international, multicentre, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, parallel-group trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: There is growing enthusiasm for robotic-assisted laparoscopic operations across many surgical specialities, including colorectal surgery, often not supported by robust clinical or cost-effectiveness data. A proper assessment of this new technology is required, prior to widespread recommendation or implementation. METHODS/DESIGN: The ROLARR trial is a pan-world, prospective, randomised, controlled, unblinded, superiority trial of robotic-assisted versus standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative treatment of rectal cancer. It will investigate differences in terms of the rate of conversion to open operation, rate of pathological involvement of circumferential resection margin, 3-year local recurrence, disease-free and overall survival rates and also operative morbidity and mortality, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome measure is the rate of conversion to open operation. For 80% power at the 5% (two-sided) significance level, to identify a relative 50% reduction in open conversion rate (25% to 12.5%), 336 patients will be required. The target recruitment is 400 patients overall to allow loss to follow-up. Patients will be followed up at 30 days and 6 months post-operatively and then annually until 3 years after the last patient has been randomised. DISCUSSION: In many centres, robotic-assisted surgery is being implemented on the basis of theoretical advantages, which have yet to be confirmed in practice. Robotic surgery is an expensive health care provision and merits robust evaluation. The ROLARR trial is a pragmatic trial aiming to provide a comprehensive evaluation of both robotic-assisted and standard laparoscopic surgery for the curative resection of rectal cancer.

Agonist-specific, high-affinity binding epitopes are contributed by an arginine in the N-terminus of the human oxytocin receptor.

The effects of the peptide hormone oxytocin (OT) are mediated by the oxytocin receptor, which is a member of the G-protein-coupled receptor family. Defining differences between the binding of agonists and antagonists to the OTR, at the molecular level, is of fundamental importance to understanding OTR activation and to rational drug design. Previous reports have indicated that the N-terminus of the OTR is required for OT binding. The aim of this study was to identify which individual residues within the N-terminal domain of the human OTR provided these OT binding epitopes. A series of truncated OTRs and mutant receptor constructs with systematic alanine substitution were characterized with respect to their pharmacological profile and intracellular signaling capability. Although a number of residues within the OTR will be required for optimal OT-OTR interaction, our data establish that Arg(34) within the N-terminal domain contributes to high-affinity OT binding. Removal of Arg(34) by truncation or substitution resulted in a 2000-fold decrease in OT affinity. In addition, we show that the arginyl at this locus is required for high-affinity binding of agonists in general. However, the importance of Arg(34) is restricted to agonist interaction with the OTR, as it was not required for binding peptide antagonist or non-peptide antagonist. It is noteworthy that the corresponding Arg in the related rat V(1a) vasopressin receptor is also required for high-affinity agonist binding. This study defines, at the molecular level, the role of the N-terminus of the OTR in high-affinity agonist binding and identifies a key residue for this function.