Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SWAT169.

What are the main inefficiencies in trial conduct: a survey of UKCRC registered clinical trials units in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results. METHODS: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories. RESULTS: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%). CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct.

Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer has improved outcomes but causes toxicity. The UK TACT2 trial used a 2×2 factorial design to test two hypotheses: whether use of accelerated epirubicin would improve time to tumour recurrence (TTR); and whether use of oral capecitabine instead of cyclophosphamide would be non-inferior in terms of patients' outcomes and would improve toxicity, quality of life, or both. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 129 UK centres who had histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer, had undergone complete excision, and were due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF; 600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs one to three vs four or more), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was TTR, defined as time from randomisation to first invasive relapse or breast cancer death, with intention-to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerated epirubicin and per-protocol analysis of CMF versus capecitabine. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 68068041, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (4371 women and 20 men) were recruited. At a median follow-up of 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9) no significant difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the accelerated and standard epirubicin groups (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·09; stratified p=0·42). At 5 years, 85·9% (95% CI 84·3-87·3) of patients receiving standard epirubicin and 87·1% (85·6-88·4) of those receiving accelerated epirubicin were free from TTR events. 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the CMF and capecitabine groups (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1.14; stratified p=0·00092 for non-inferiority). Compared with baseline, significantly more patients taking CMF than those taking capecitabine had clinically relevant worsening of quality of life at end of treatment (255 [58%] of 441 vs 235 [50%] of 475; p=0·011) and at 12 months (114 [34%] of 334 vs 89 [22%] of 401; p<0·001 at 12 months) and had worse quality of life over time (p<0·0001). Detailed toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected from 2115 (48%) of treated patients. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in cycles 1-4 were neutropenia (175 [16%]) and fatigue (56 [5%]) of the 1070 patients treated with standard epirubicin, and fatigue (63 [6%]) and infection (34 [3%]) of the 1045 patients treated with accelerated epirubicin. In cycles 5-8, the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (321 [31%]) and fatigue (109 [11%]) in the patients treated with CMF, and hand-foot syndrome (129 [12%]) and diarrhoea (67 [6%]) in the 1044 patients treated with capcitabine. INTERPRETATION: We found no benefit from increasing the dose density of the anthracycline component of chemotherapy. However, capecitabine could be used in place of CMF without significant loss of efficacy and with improved quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Circulating Cell-Free DNA to Guide Prostate Cancer Treatment with PARP Inhibition.

Biomarkers for more precise patient care are needed in metastatic prostate cancer. We have reported a phase II trial (TOPARP-A) of the PARP inhibitor olaparib in metastatic prostate cancer, demonstrating antitumor activity associating with homologous recombination DNA repair defects. We now report targeted and whole-exome sequencing of serial circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) samples collected during this trial. Decreases in cfDNA concentration independently associated with outcome in multivariable analyses (HR for overall survival at week 8: 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.56; P = 0.003). All tumor tissue somatic DNA repair mutations were detectable in cfDNA; allele frequency of somatic mutations decreased selectively in responding patients (χ2P < 0.001). At disease progression, following response to olaparib, multiple subclonal aberrations reverting germline and somatic DNA repair mutations (BRCA2, PALB2) back in frame emerged as mechanisms of resistance. These data support the role of liquid biopsies as a predictive, prognostic, response, and resistance biomarker in metastatic prostate cancer.Significance: We report prospectively planned, serial, cfDNA analyses from patients with metastatic prostate cancer treated on an investigator-initiated phase II trial of olaparib. These analyses provide predictive, prognostic, response, and resistance data with "second hit" mutations first detectable at disease progression, suggesting clonal evolution from treatment-selective pressure and platinum resistance. Cancer Discov; 7(9); 1006-17. ©2017 AACR.See related commentary by Domchek, p. 937See related article by Kondrashova et al., p. 984See related article by Quigley et al., p. 999This article is highlighted in the In This Issue feature, p. 920.

Impact of mutational profiles on response of primary oestrogen receptor-positive breast cancers to oestrogen deprivation.

Pre-surgical studies allow study of the relationship between mutations and response of oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+) breast cancer to aromatase inhibitors (AIs) but have been limited to small biopsies. Here in phase I of this study, we perform exome sequencing on baseline, surgical core-cuts and blood from 60 patients (40 AI treated, 20 controls). In poor responders (based on Ki67 change), we find significantly more somatic mutations than good responders. Subclones exclusive to baseline or surgical cores occur in ∼30% of tumours. In phase II, we combine targeted sequencing on another 28 treated patients with phase I. We find six genes frequently mutated: PIK3CA, TP53, CDH1, MLL3, ABCA13 and FLG with 71% concordance between paired cores. TP53 mutations are associated with poor response. We conclude that multiple biopsies are essential for confident mutational profiling of ER+ breast cancer and TP53 mutations are associated with resistance to oestrogen deprivation therapy.

DNA-Repair Defects and Olaparib in Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer is a heterogeneous disease, but current treatments are not based on molecular stratification. We hypothesized that metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancers with DNA-repair defects would respond to poly(adenosine diphosphate [ADP]-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibition with olaparib. METHODS: We conducted a phase 2 trial in which patients with metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer were treated with olaparib tablets at a dose of 400 mg twice a day. The primary end point was the response rate, defined either as an objective response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors, version 1.1, or as a reduction of at least 50% in the prostate-specific antigen level or a confirmed reduction in the circulating tumor-cell count from 5 or more cells per 7.5 ml of blood to less than 5 cells per 7.5 ml. Targeted next-generation sequencing, exome and transcriptome analysis, and digital polymerase-chain-reaction testing were performed on samples from mandated tumor biopsies. RESULTS: Overall, 50 patients were enrolled; all had received prior treatment with docetaxel, 49 (98%) had received abiraterone or enzalutamide, and 29 (58%) had received cabazitaxel. Sixteen of 49 patients who could be evaluated had a response (33%; 95% confidence interval, 20 to 48), with 12 patients receiving the study treatment for more than 6 months. Next-generation sequencing identified homozygous deletions, deleterious mutations, or both in DNA-repair genes--including BRCA1/2, ATM, Fanconi's anemia genes, and CHEK2--in 16 of 49 patients who could be evaluated (33%). Of these 16 patients, 14 (88%) had a response to olaparib, including all 7 patients with BRCA2 loss (4 with biallelic somatic loss, and 3 with germline mutations) and 4 of 5 with ATM aberrations. The specificity of the biomarker suite was 94%. Anemia (in 10 of the 50 patients [20%]) and fatigue (in 6 [12%]) were the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events, findings that are consistent with previous studies of olaparib. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with the PARP inhibitor olaparib in patients whose prostate cancers were no longer responding to standard treatments and who had defects in DNA-repair genes led to a high response rate. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01682772; Cancer Research UK number, CRUK/11/029.).