The PARTNER trial of neoadjuvant olaparib with chemotherapy in triple-negative breast cancer.

PARTNER is a prospective, phase II-III, randomized controlled clinical trial that recruited patients with triple-negative breast cancer1,2, who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type3. Here we report the results of the trial. Patients (n = 559) were randomized on a 1:1 basis to receive neoadjuvant carboplatin-paclitaxel with or without 150 mg olaparib twice daily, on days 3 to 14, of each of four cycles (gap schedule olaparib, research arm) followed by three cycles of anthracycline-based chemotherapy before surgery. The primary end point was pathologic complete response (pCR)4, and secondary end points included event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS)5. pCR was achieved in 51% of patients in the research arm and 52% in the control arm (P = 0.753). Estimated EFS at 36 months in the research and control arms was 80% and 79% (log-rank P > 0.9), respectively; OS was 90% and 87.2% (log-rank P = 0.8), respectively. In patients with pCR, estimated EFS at 36 months was 90%, and in those with non-pCR it was 70% (log-rank P < 0.001), and OS was 96% and 83% (log-rank P < 0.001), respectively. Neoadjuvant olaparib did not improve pCR rates, EFS or OS when added to carboplatin-paclitaxel and anthracycline-based chemotherapy in patients with triple-negative breast cancer who were germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 wild type. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03150576 .

A UK prospective multicentre decision impact, decision conflict and economic evaluation of the 21-gene assay in women with node+ve, hormone receptor+ve, HER2-ve breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: For a tumour profiling test to be of value, it needs to demonstrate that it is changing clinical decisions, improving clinical confidence, and of economic benefit. This trial evaluated the use of the Oncotype DX Breast Recurrence Score® assay against these criteria in 680 women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+), HER2-negative early breast cancer with 1-3 lymph nodes positive (LN+) in the UK National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: Prior to receipt of the Recurrence Score (RS) result, both the physician and the patient were asked to state their preference for or against chemotherapy and their level of confidence on a scale of 1-5. Following receipt of the RS result, the physician and patient were asked to make a final decision regarding chemotherapy and record their post-test level of confidence. RESULTS: Receipt of the RS result led to a 51.5% (95% CI, 47.2-55.8%) reduction in chemotherapy, significantly increased the relative and absolute confidence for both physicians and patients and led to an estimated saving to the NHS of £787 per patient. CONCLUSION: The use of the Oncotype DX assay fulfils the criteria of changing clinical decisions, improving confidence and saving money.

Comparison of Circulating Tumor DNA Assays for Molecular Residual Disease Detection in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Detection of circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) in patients who have completed treatment for early-stage breast cancer is associated with a high risk of relapse, yet the optimal assay for ctDNA detection is unknown. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The cTRAK-TN clinical trial prospectively used tumor-informed digital PCR (dPCR) assays for ctDNA molecular residual disease (MRD) detection in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer. We compared tumor-informed dPCR assays with tumor-informed personalized multimutation sequencing assays in 141 patients from cTRAK-TN. RESULTS: MRD was first detected by personalized sequencing in 47.9% of patients, 0% first detected by dPCR, and 52.1% with both assays simultaneously (P < 0.001; Fisher exact test). The median lead time from ctDNA detection to relapse was 6.1 months with personalized sequencing and 3.9 months with dPCR (P = 0.004, mixed-effects Cox model). Detection of MRD at the first time point was associated with a shorter time to relapse compared with detection at subsequent time points (median lead time 4.2 vs. 7.1 months; P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Personalized multimutation sequencing assays have potential clinically important improvements in clinical outcome in the early detection of MRD.

Olaparib and Ceralasertib (AZD6738) in Patients with Triple-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results from Cohort E of the plasmaMATCH Trial (CRUK/15/010).

PURPOSE: Approximately 10% to 15% of triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) have deleterious mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 and may benefit from PARP inhibitor treatment. PARP inhibitors may also increase exogenous replication stress and thereby increase sensitivity to inhibitors of ataxia telangiectasia and Rad3-related (ATR) protein. This phase II study examined the activity of the combination of PARP inhibitor, olaparib, and ATR inhibitor, ceralasertib (AZD6738), in patients with advanced TNBC. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with TNBC on most recent biopsy who had received 1 or 2 lines of chemotherapy for advanced disease or had relapsed within 12 months of (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy were eligible. Treatment was olaparib 300 mg twice a day continuously and celarasertib 160 mg on days 1-7 on a 28-day cycle until disease progression. The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (ORR). Tissue and plasma biomarker analyses were preplanned to identify predictors of response. RESULTS: 70 evaluable patients were enrolled. Germline BRCA1/2 mutations were present in 10 (14%) patients and 3 (4%) patients had somatic BRCA mutations. The confirmed ORR was 12/70; 17.1% (95% confidence interval, 10.4-25.5). Responses were observed in patients without germline or somatic BRCA1/2 mutations, including patients with mutations in other homologous recombination repair genes and tumors with functional homologous recombination deficiency by RAD51 foci. CONCLUSIONS: The response rate to olaparib and ceralasertib did not meet prespecified criteria for activity in the overall evaluable population, but responses were observed in patients who would not be expected to respond to olaparib monotherapy.

Afatinib alone and in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel, in patients with HER2-positive breast cancer who failed or progressed on prior trastuzumab and/or lapatinib (LUX-Breast 2): an open-label, multicenter, phase II trial.

PURPOSE: Resistance to HER2 (ErbB2)-targeted therapy may be mediated by other members of the ErbB family. We investigated the efficacy and safety of the irreversible ErbB family blocker, afatinib, alone as first-line therapy in the advanced setting and in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel for those who progressed on afatinib monotherapy, in female patients with metastatic breast cancer who had failed or progressed on prior HER2-targeted therapy in the early disease setting. METHODS: In this phase II, single-arm, two-part study (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01271725), patients in part A received afatinib 40 mg/day in 21-day cycles until disease progression or intolerable adverse events (AEs). Patients with progressive disease could then receive afatinib plus weekly vinorelbine 25 mg/m2 or paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 until disease progression or intolerable AEs (part B). The primary endpoint was confirmed objective response rate (RECIST v1.1). RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients were enrolled and 74 were treated in part A (median age: 51 years [range 27-76]; 31 [42%] estrogen receptor-positive, 26 [35%] progesterone receptor-positive). Of these, 39 (53%) patients went on to receive afatinib plus vinorelbine (13 patients) or paclitaxel (26 patients) in part B. Thirteen (18%) and 12 (31%) patients achieved an objective response in parts A and B, respectively. The most common treatment-related AEs with afatinib monotherapy (any/grade ≥ 3) were diarrhea (68%/8%) and rash (49%/4%). Combination therapy was generally well tolerated, with no additive toxicity observed. CONCLUSION: Afatinib treatment, alone or in combination with vinorelbine or paclitaxel, was associated with objective responses in ≥ 18% of patients with metastatic breast cancer for whom prior HER2-targeted therapy has failed. Treatment-related AEs were generally manageable, with few grade ≥ 3 AEs reported. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01271725, registered 1 July 2011.

Systemic chemotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis (New EPOC): long-term results of a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The interim analysis of the multicentre New EPOC trial in patients with resectable colorectal liver metastasis showed a significant reduction in progression-free survival in patients allocated to cetuximab plus chemotherapy compared with those given chemotherapy alone. The focus of the present analysis was to assess the effect on overall survival. METHODS: New EPOC was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial. Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with KRAS wild-type (codons 12, 13, and 61) resectable or suboptimally resectable colorectal liver metastases and a WHO performance status of 0-2 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive chemotherapy with or without cetuximab before and after liver resection. Randomisation was done centrally with minimisation factors of surgical centre, poor prognosis cancer, and previous adjuvant treatment with oxaliplatin. Chemotherapy consisted of oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h, l-folinic acid (175 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h) or d,l-folinic acid (350 mg flat dose administered intravenously over 2 h), and fluorouracil bolus 400 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 5 min, followed by a 46 h infusion of fluorouracil 2400 mg/m2 repeated every 2 weeks (regimen one), or oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 administered intravenously over 2 h and oral capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 repeated every 3 weeks (regimen two). Patients who had received adjuvant oxaliplatin could receive irinotecan 180 mg/m2 intravenously over 30 min with fluorouracil instead of oxaliplatin (regimen three). Cetuximab was given intravenously, 500 mg/m2 every 2 weeks with regimen one and three or a loading dose of 400 mg/m2 followed by a weekly infusion of 250 mg/m2 with regimen two. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was published previously. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, preoperative response, pathological resection status, and safety. Trial recruitment was halted prematurely on the advice of the Trial Steering Committee on Nov 1, 2012. All analyses (except safety) were done on the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses included all randomly assigned patients. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 22944367. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2007, and Oct 12, 2012, 257 eligible patients were randomly assigned to chemotherapy with cetuximab (n=129) or without cetuximab (n=128). This analysis was carried out 5 years after the last patient was recruited, as defined in the protocol, at a median follow-up of 66·7 months (IQR 58·0-77·5). Median progression-free survival was 22·2 months (95% CI 18·3-26·8) in the chemotherapy alone group and 15·5 months (13·8-19·0) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·17, 95% CI 0·87-1·56; p=0·304). Median overall survival was 81·0 months (59·6 to not reached) in the chemotherapy alone group and 55·4 months (43·5-71·5) in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group (HR 1·45, 1·02-2·05; p=0·036). There was no significant difference in the secondary outcomes of preoperative response or pathological resection status between groups. Five deaths might have been treatment-related (one in the chemotherapy alone group and four in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events reported were: neutrophil count decreased (26 [19%] of 134 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 21 [15%] of 137 in the chemotherapy plus cetuximab group), diarrhoea (13 [10%] vs 14 [10%]), skin rash (one [1%] vs 22 [16%]), thromboembolic events (ten [7%] vs 11 [8%]), lethargy (ten [7%] vs nine [7%]), oral mucositis (three [2%] vs 14 [10%]), vomiting (seven [5%] vs seven [5%]), peripheral neuropathy (eight [6%] vs five [4%]), and pain (six [4%] vs six [4%]). INTERPRETATION: Although the addition of cetuximab to chemotherapy improves the overall survival in some studies in patients with advanced, inoperable metastatic disease, its use in the perioperative setting in patients with operable disease confers a significant disadvantage in terms of overall survival. Cetuximab should not be used in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.

Survival outcomes of the NeoALTTO study (BIG 1-06): updated results of a randomised multicenter phase III neoadjuvant clinical trial in patients with HER2-positive primary breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib (L) plus trastuzumab (T) with weekly paclitaxel significantly increased the pathologic complete response (pCR) rate compared with the anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) agent alone plus paclitaxel. The event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) by the treatment arms L + T vs. T and L vs. T and the relationship between pCR and EFS/OS both in the whole study population and according to hormone receptor-negative and hormone receptor-positive cohorts after a median follow-up of 6.7 years were assessed. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Four hundred fifty-five patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer randomly received L 1500 mg/day (n = 154), T (common dose, n = 149) or L 1000 mg/day plus T (n = 152) for 6 weeks, followed by the assigned anti-HER2 treatment combined with paclitaxel weekly × 12. After surgery, patients received 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide. The primary end-point was pCR (ypT0/is; for current analysis, it is ypT0/is ypN0), and the secondary end-points were EFS and OS. RESULTS: Six-year EFS rates were 67%, 67% and 74% with L, T and L + T, respectively (L vs T: hazard ratio [HR], 0.98 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.64-1.51; P = .93]; L + T vs T: HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.52-1.26; P = .35]). Six-Year OS rates were 82%, 79% and 85% for L, T and L + T, respectively (L vs T: HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.49-1.46; P = .56]; L + T vs T: HR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.41-1.27; P = .26]). In landmark analyses, patients with a pCR had a significantly higher 6-year EFS (77% and 65%) and OS (89% and 77%) compared with those without a pCR for both overall and the hormone receptor-negative cohort. CONCLUSION: Achieving a pCR is important in HER2-positive disease and translates into better long-term outcome with regard to EFS and OS.

Carcinoembryonic Antigen Levels and Survival in Stage III Colon Cancer: Post hoc Analysis of the MOSAIC and PETACC-8 Trials.

BACKGROUND: We explored and validated the association of postoperative carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) with disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) in stage III colon cancer. METHODS: Patients with stage III colon cancer from the MOSAIC and PETACC-8 trials were enrolled. The relation between CEA and outcomes was continuously modeled with the restricted cubic splines (RCS) method. Association of CEA with outcomes was assessed by the Kaplan-Meier method, with two risk groups among patients with a CEA level ≤5 ng/mL. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were constructed. RESULTS: The CEA level was available in 1,292 (96%) and 2,477 (97%) patients in the discovery and validation cohorts. The RCS analysis confirmed that patients with a CEA level >5 ng/mL were at highest risk of recurrence or death and those with a CEA level ≤5 ng/mL presented a heterogeneous risk population. In the discovery cohort, the 3-year DFS rate was 75%, 65%, and 45% in a group of patients with CEA level of 0-1.30 ng/mL (n = 630), 1.30-5 ng/mL (n = 613), and >5 ng/mL (n = 49), respectively (P < 0.001). CEA was independently associated with endpoints. All findings were confirmed in the validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative CEA level was highly and independently associated with DFS and OS, especially in patients with a CEA level of ≤5 ng/mL, suggesting that this cutoff is not optimal. IMPACT: CEA levels should be applied more accurately in future trials and clinical practice.

Association of post-operative CEA with survival and oxaliplatin benefit in patients with stage II colon cancer: a post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant treatment for stage II colon cancer (CC) can be proposed to patients with high-risk disease. Recently, 2.35 ng/mL carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) was identified as the best cut-off value. This post hoc analysis of the MOSAIC trial assessed post-operative CEA prognostic value for survival outcomes and predictive value for the addition of oxaliplatin to adjuvant treatment. METHODS: Prognostic and predictive values of post-operative CEA in patients with stage II CC were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Cox model with interaction terms. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated. RESULTS: Among 899 stage II CC patients, post-operative CEA was available in 867 (96.4%); and 434 (48.65%) had a high-risk stage II disease. The 3-year DFS rate was 88.5% and 78.7% in the ≤ 2.35 ng/mL and > 2.35 ng/mL group, respectively (P = 0.006). Use of oxaliplatin showed survival benefit only in patients with high-risk stage II CC and post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/ml (interaction term P = 0.09 and 0.03 for DFS and OS). CONCLUSION: CEA is a strong prognostic factor for DFS and OS in stage II CC. In the MOSAIC trial, only high-risk stage II CC patients with post-operative CEA > 2.35 ng/mL benefited from the addition of oxaliplatin to LV5FU2. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT00275210 (January 11, 2006).

Interleukin-1 receptor antagonist levels predict favorable outcome after bermekimab, a first-in-class true human interleukin-1α antibody, in a phase III randomized study of advanced colorectal cancer.

Bermekimab is a true human monoclonal antibody that targets interleukin-1alpa (IL-1α), an inflammation-mediating alarmin. IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1Ra) is a natural molecule that blocks IL-1α activity by occupying the IL-1 receptor. The effect of endogenous IL-1Ra levels on the effectiveness of bermekimab is unknown. We investigated whether pre-treatment levels of circulating IL-1Ra, assessed by an enzyme-linked immunoassay, correlated with achievement of the primary outcome endpoint (effect on lean body mass and symptoms at week 8) in a Phase III study (2:1 randomization) of bermekimab versus placebo (each with best supportive care) in advanced colorectal cancer. Patients who responded to bermekimab in terms of achieving the primary endpoint had lower levels of IL-1Ra than non-responders (N = 204 patients; median = 843 vs. 1035 pg/ml, p=0.0092); no such relationship was observed in the placebo arm (N = 100 patients; 901 vs. 984 pg/ml, p = 0.55). Multivariate analysis corroborated that, in the bermekimab group, patients with lower baseline IL-1Ra levels were more likely to achieve the primary endpoint (odds ratio (OR) 1.7 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.1 to 2.6), p = 0.017); in contrast, in the placebo arm, pre-treatment plasma IL-1Ra levels were not associated with outcome (OR 1.2 (95% CI 0.6 to 2.5), p = 0.57). The current findings demonstrate that, in a randomized phase III trial, patients with advanced colorectal cancer and lower levels of circulating IL-1Ra are more responsive to treatment with the IL-1α-targeting antibody bermekimab and these observations define a potential biomarker for anti-IL-1α therapy.

Gemcitabine-induced haemolytic uremic syndrome, although infrequent, can it be prevented: A case report and review of literature.

Gemcitabine is an antineoplastic used to treat several malignancies including pancreatic cancer. Its toxicity profile is well known with myelotoxicity, increased vascular permeability and peripheral oedema as most frequent adverse events. However, several cases of acute renal failure have been reported and haemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) seems to be the underlying process. The cause of HUS remains unknown but its consequences can be lethal. Therefore, a high grade of suspicion is crucial to diagnose it and promptly treat it. This hopefully will reduce its morbidity. HUS is characterized by progressive renal failure associated with microangiopathic haemolytic anaemia and thrombocytopenia. The primary event is damage to endothelial cells and thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA) is the histopathological lesion. TMA affects mainly renal microvasculature. However, some cases evolve with central nervous or cardiovascular systems involvement. We present here a case of gemcitabine-induced HUS, with renal and cardiovascular system affected at the time of diagnosis which to our knowledge this is the first time of such case to be reported.

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

Long-term efficacy analysis of the randomised, phase II TRYPHAENA cardiac safety study: Evaluating pertuzumab and trastuzumab plus standard neoadjuvant anthracycline-containing and anthracycline-free chemotherapy regimens in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: We report long-term efficacy and cardiac safety outcomes in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant pertuzumab plus trastuzumab with anthracycline-containing or anthracycline-free chemotherapy. METHODS: Descriptive efficacy analyses were conducted in patients randomised to group A (cycles 1-6: trastuzumab [8 mg/kg loading dose and 6 mg/kg maintenance] plus pertuzumab [840 mg loading dose and 420 mg maintenance], plus 5-fluorouracil, epirubicin and cyclophosphamide [FEC] [cycles 1-3; 500 mg/m2 5-fluorouracil/100 mg/m2 epirubicin/600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide] then docetaxel [cycles 4-6; 75 mg/m2, escalated to 100 mg/m2 if well tolerated]), B (cycles 1-3: FEC, cycles 4-6: trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus docetaxel as mentioned previously) or C (cycles 1-6: trastuzumab plus pertuzumab plus docetaxel [75 mg/m2, without dose escalation], and carboplatin [AUC 6]), five years after randomisation of the last patient. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00976989. RESULTS: Three-year Kaplan-Meier survival estimates for disease-free survival (DFS) were 87% (95% confidence interval: 79-95), 88% (80-96) and 90% (82-97) in groups A-C, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) rates were 89% (81-96), 89% (81-96) and 87% (80-95). DFS hazard ratio for total pathological complete response (tpCR) versus no tpCR was 0.27 (0.11-0.64). During post-treatment follow-up, 2/72 (2.8%), 3/75 (4.0%) and 4/76 (5.4%) patients in groups A-C had any-grade left ventricular systolic dysfunction; eight (11.1%), 12 (16.0%) and nine (11.8%) patients experienced left ventricular ejection fraction declines ≥10% from baseline to <50%. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term DFS and PFS were similar between groups. Patients who achieved tpCR had improved DFS. No new safety signals were identified.

Increased DNA Methylation of ABCB1, CYP2D6, and OPRM1 Genes in Newborn Infants of Methadone-Maintained Opioid-Dependent Mothers.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether in utero opioid exposure, which has been linked to adverse neurodevelopmental and social outcomes, is associated with altered DNA methylation of opioid-related genes at birth. STUDY DESIGN: Observational cohort study of 21 healthy methadone-maintained opioid-dependent mother-infant dyads consecutively delivered at >36 weeks of gestation, and 2 comparator groups: smoking, "deprived" opioid-naïve mother-infant dyads (n = 17) and nonsmoking, "affluent" opioid-naïve mother-infant dyads (n = 15). DNA methylation of ABCB1, CYP2D6, and OPRM1 genes for mothers and babies was determined from buccal swabs. Plasma methadone concentrations were additionally measured for methadone-maintained opioid-dependent mothers. RESULTS: DNA methylation for ABCB1 and CYP2D6 was similar in opioid-naïve infants compared with their mothers, but was less for OPRM1 (3 ± 1.6% vs 8 ± 1%, P < .0005). Opioid-exposed newborns had similar DNA methylation to their mothers for all genes studied and greater methylation of ABCB1 (18 ± 4.8% vs 3 ± 0.5%), CYP2D6 (92 ± 1.2% vs 89 ± 2.4%), and OPRM1 (8 ± 0.3% vs 3 ± 1.6%) compared with opioid-naïve newborns (P < .0005 for all 3 genes). Infant DNA methylation was not related to birth weight, length of hospital stay, maternal smoking, dose or plasma concentration of methadone at delivery, or postcode of residence. CONCLUSIONS: In utero exposure to opioids is associated with increased methylation of opioid-related genes in the newborn infant. It is not clear whether these findings are due to opioid exposure per se or other associated lifestyle factors.

Impact of tumour histological subtype on chemotherapy outcome in advanced oesophageal cancer.

AIM: To investigate the impact of histology on outcome in advanced oesophageal cancer treated with first-line fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Individual patient data were pooled from three randomised phase III trials of fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy ± platinum/anthracycline in patients with advanced, untreated gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) randomised between 1994 and 2005. The primary endpoint was overall survival of oesophageal cancer patients according to histology. Secondary endpoints were response rates and a toxicity composite endpoint. RESULTS: Of the total 1836 randomised patients, 973 patients (53%) were eligible (707 patients with gastric cancer were excluded), 841 (86%) had adenocarcinoma and 132 (14%) had SCC. There was no significant difference in survival between patients with adenocarcinoma and SCC, with median overall survivals of 9.5 mo vs 7.6 mo (HR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.70-1.03, P = 0.09) and one-year survivals of 38.8% vs 28.2% respectively. The overall response rate to chemotherapy was 44% for adenocarcinoma vs 33% for SCC (P = 0.01). There was no difference in the frequency of the toxicity composite endpoint between the two groups. CONCLUSION: There was no significant difference in survival between adenocarcinoma and SCC in patients with advanced oesophageal cancer treated with fluoropyrimidine-based chemotherapy despite a trend for worse survival and less chemo-sensitivity in SCC. Tolerance to treatment was similar in both groups. This analysis highlights the unmet need for SCC-specific studies in advanced oesophageal cancer and will aid in the design of future trials of targeted agents.

Central pathology review with two-stage quality assurance for pathological response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in the ARTemis Trial.

The ARTemis Trial tested standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy±bevacizumab in the treatment of HER2-negative early breast cancer. We compare data from central pathology review with report review and also the reporting behavior of the two central pathologists. Eight hundred women with HER2-negative early invasive breast cancer were recruited. Response to chemotherapy was assessed from local pathology reports for pathological complete response in breast and axillary lymph nodes. Sections from the original core biopsy and surgical excision were centrally reviewed by one of two trial pathologists blinded to the local pathology reports. Pathologists recorded response to chemotherapy descriptively and also calculated residual cancer burden. 10% of cases were double-reported to compare the central pathologists' reporting behavior. Full sample retrieval was obtained for 681 of the 781 patients (87%) who underwent surgery within the trial and were evaluable for pathological complete response. Four hundred and eighty-three (71%) were assessed by JSJT, and 198 (29%) were assessed by EP. Residual cancer burden calculations were possible in 587/681 (86%) of the centrally reviewed patients, as 94/681 (14%) had positive sentinel nodes removed before neoadjuvant chemotherapy invalidating residual cancer burden scoring. Good concordance was found between the two pathologists for residual cancer burden classes within the 65-patient quality assurance exercise (kappa 0.63 (95% CI: 0.57-0.69)). Similar results were obtained for the between-treatment arm comparison both from the report review and the central pathology review. For pathological complete response, report review was as good as central pathology review but for minimal residual disease, report review overestimated the extent of residual disease. In the ARTemis Trial central pathology review added little in the determination of pathological complete response but had a role in evaluating low levels of residual disease. Calculation of residual cancer burden was a simple and reproducible method of quantifying response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy as demonstrated by performance comparison of the two pathologists.

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.

Vandetanib plus gemcitabine versus placebo plus gemcitabine in locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic carcinoma (ViP): a prospective, randomised, double-blind, multicentre phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434. FINDINGS: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ21df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study. INTERPRETATION: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca.