Efficacy of early PET-CT directed switch to carboplatin and paclitaxel based definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer who have a poor early response to induction cisplatin and capecitabine in the UK: a multi-centre randomised controlled phase II trial.

Background: The utility of early metabolic response assessment to guide selection of the systemic component of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer is uncertain. Methods: In this multi-centre, randomised, open-label, phase II substudy of the radiotherapy dose-escalation SCOPE2 trial we evaluated the role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) at day 14 of cycle 1 of three-weekly induction cis/cap (cisplatin (60 mg/m2)/capecitabine (625 mg/m2 days 1-21)) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC). Non-responders, who had a less than 35% reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from pre-treatment baseline, were randomly assigned to continue cis/cap or switch to car/pac (carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) for a further induction cycle, then concurrently with radiotherapy over 25 fractions. Responders continued cis/cap for the duration of treatment. All patients (including responders) were randomised to standard (50Gy) or high (60Gy) dose radiation as part of the main study. Primary endpoint for the substudy was treatment failure-free survival (TFFS) at week 24. The trial was registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 97125464 and ClinicalTrials.govNCT02741856. Findings: This substudy was closed on 1st August 2021 by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on the grounds of futility and possible harm. To this point from 22nd November 2016, 103 patients from 16 UK centres had participated in the PET-CT substudy; 63 (61.2%; 52/83 OSCC, 11/20 OAC) of whom were non-responders. Of these, 31 were randomised to car/pac and 32 to remain on cis/cap. All patients were followed up until at least 24 weeks, at which point in OSCC both TFFS (25/27 (92.6%) vs 17/25 (68%); p = 0.028) and overall survival (42.5 vs. 20.4 months, adjusted HR 0.36; p = 0.018) favoured cis/cap over car/pac. There was a trend towards worse survival in OSCC + OAC cis/cap responders (33.6 months; 95%CI 23.1-nr) vs. non-responders (42.5 (95%CI 27.0-nr) months; HR = 1.43; 95%CI 0.67-3.08; p = 0.35). Interpretation: In OSCC, early metabolic response assessment is not prognostic for TFFS or overall survival and should not be used to personalise systemic therapy in patients receiving dCRT. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Technique for inguino-femoral lymph node dissection in vulvar cancer: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Vulvar cancer is a rare disease and despite broad adoption of sentinel lymph node mapping to assess groin metastases, inguino-femoral lymph node dissection still plays a role in the management of this disease. Inguino-femoral lymph node dissection is associated with high morbidity, and limited research exists to guide the best surgical approach. OBJECTIVE: To determine international practice patterns in key aspects of the inguino-femoral lymph node dissection technique and provide data to guide future research. METHODS: A survey addressing six key domains of practice patterns in performing inguino-femoral lymph node dissection was distributed internationally to gynecologic oncology surgeons between April and October 2020. The survey was distributed using the British Gynecological Cancer Society, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology, authors' direct links, the UK Audit and Research in Gynecology Oncology group, and Twitter. RESULTS: A total of 259 responses were received from 18 countries. The majority (236/259, 91.1%) of respondents reported performing a modified oblique incision, routinely dissecting the superficial and deep inguino-femoral lymph nodes (137/185, 74.1%) with sparing of the saphenous vein (227/258, 88%). Most respondents did not routinely use compression dressings/underwear (169/252 (67.1%), used prophylactic antibiotics at the time of surgery only (167/257, 65%), and closed the skin with sutures (192 74.4%). Also, a drain is placed at the time of surgery by 243/259 (93.8%) surgeons, with most practitioners (144/243, 59.3%) waiting for drainage to be less than 30-50 mL in 24 hours before removal; most respondents (66.3%) routinely discharge patients with drain(s) in situ. CONCLUSION: Our study showed that most surgeons perform a modified oblique incision, dissect the superficial and deep inguino-femoral lymph nodes, and spare the saphenous vein when performing groin lymphadenectomy. This survey has demonstrated significant variability in inguino-femoral lymph node dissection in cases of vulvar cancer among gynecologic oncology surgeons internationally.

Circulating biomarkers and outcomes from a randomised phase 2 trial of gemcitabine versus capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Phase 2 SCALOP trial compared gemcitabine with capecitabine-based consolidation chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). METHODS: Thirty-five systematically identified circulating biomarkers were analysed in plasma samples from 60 patients enroled in SCALOP. Each was measured in triplicate at baseline (prior to three cycles of gemcitabine-capecitabine induction chemotherapy) and, for a subset, prior to CRT. Association with overall survival (OS) was determined using univariable Cox regression and optimal thresholds delineating low to high values identified using time-dependent ROC curves. Independence from known prognostic factors was assessed using Spearman correlation and the Wilcoxon rank sum test prior to multivariable Cox regression modelling including independent biomarkers and known prognostic factors. RESULTS: Baseline circulating levels of C-C motif chemokine ligand 5 (CCL5) were significantly associated with OS, independent of other clinicopathological characteristics. Patients with low circulating CCL5 (CCL5low) had a median OS of 18.5 (95% CI 11.76-21.32) months compared to 11.3 (95% CI 9.86-15.51) months in CCL5high; hazard ratio 1.95 (95% CI 1.04-8.65; p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: CCL5 is an independent prognostic biomarker in LAPC. Given the known role of CCL5 in tumour invasion, metastasis and the induction of an immunosuppressive micro-environment, targeting of CCL5-mediated pathways may offer therapeutic potential in pancreatic cancer. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SCALOP trial was registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987 (registered 29 May 2008).

Study protocol: a multi-centre randomised study of induction chemotherapy followed by capecitabine ± nelfinavir with high- or standard-dose radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP-2).

BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation is a treatment option for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, overall survival is comparable to chemotherapy alone and local progression occurs in nearly half of all patients, suggesting chemoradiation strategies should be optimised. SCALOP-2 is a randomised phase II trial testing the role of radiotherapy dose escalation and/or the addition of the radiosensitiser nelfinavir, following induction chemotherapy of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEMABX). A safety run-in phase (stage 1) established the nelfinavir dose to administer with chemoradiation in the randomised phase (stage 2). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma receive three cycles of induction GEMABX chemotherapy prior to radiological assessment. Those with stable/responding disease are eligible for further trial treatment. In Stage 1, participants received one further cycle of GEMABX followed by capecitabine-chemoradiation with escalating doses of nelfinavir in a rolling-six design. Stage 2 aims to register 262 and randomise 170 patients with responding/stable disease to one of five arms: capecitabine with high- (arms C + D) or standard-dose (arms A + B) radiotherapy with (arms A + C) or without (arms B + D) nelfinavir, or three more cycles of GEMABX (arm E). Participants allocated to the chemoradiation arms receive another cycle of GEMABX before chemoradiation begins. Co-primary outcomes are 12-month overall survival (radiotherapy dose-escalation question) and progression-free survival (nelfinavir question). Secondary outcomes include toxicity, quality of life, disease response rate, resection rate, treatment compliance, and CA19-9 response. SCALOP-2 incorporates a detailed radiotherapy quality assurance programme. DISCUSSION: SCALOP-2 aims to optimise chemoradiation in LAPC and incorporates a modern induction regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2013-004968-56; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02024009.

Potential of Proton Therapy to Reduce Acute Hematologic Toxicity in Concurrent Chemoradiation Therapy for Esophageal Cancer.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy dose escalation using a simultaneous integrated boost (SIB) is predicted to improve local tumor control in esophageal cancer; however, any increase in acute hematologic toxicity (HT) could limit the predicted improvement in patient outcomes. Proton therapy has been shown to significantly reduce HT in lung cancer patients receiving concurrent chemotherapy. Therefore, we investigated the potential of bone marrow sparing with protons for esophageal tumors. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty-one patients with mid-esophageal cancer who had undergone conformal radiation therapy (3D50) were selected. Two surrogates for bone marrow were created by outlining the thoracic bones (bone) and only the body of the thoracic vertebrae (TV) in Eclipse. The percentage of overlap of the TV with the planning treatment volume was recorded for each patient. Additional plans were created retrospectively, including a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan with the same dose as for 3D50; a VMAT SIB plan with a dose prescription of 62.5 Gy to the high-risk subregion within the planning treatment volume; a reoptimized TV-sparing VMAT plan; and a proton therapy plan with the same SIB dose prescription. The bone and TV dose metrics were recorded and compared across all plans and variations with respect to PTV and percentage of overlap for each patient. RESULTS: The 3D50 plans showed the highest bone mean dose and TV percentage of volume receiving ≥30 Gy (V30Gy) for each patient. The VMAT plans irradiated a larger bone V10Gy than did the 3D50 plans. The reoptimized VMAT62.5 VT plans showed improved sparing of the TV volume, but only the proton plans showed significant sparing for bone V10Gy and bone mean dose, especially for patients with a larger PTV. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study have shown that proton therapy can reduced bone marrow toxicity.

Human Papillomavirus DNA Methylation Predicts Response to Treatment Using Cidofovir and Imiquimod in Vulval Intraepithelial Neoplasia 3.

Purpose: Response rates to treatment of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) with imiquimod and cidofovir are approximately 57% and 61%, respectively. Treatment is associated with significant side effects and, if ineffective, risk of malignant progression. Treatment response is not predicted by clinical factors. Identification of a biomarker that could predict response is an attractive prospect. This work investigated HPV DNA methylation as a potential predictive biomarker in this setting.Experimental Design: DNA from 167 cases of VIN 3 from the RT3 VIN clinical trial was assessed. HPV-positive cases were identified using Greiner PapilloCheck and HPV 16 type-specific PCR. HPV DNA methylation status was assessed in three viral regions: E2, L1/L2, and the promoter, using pyrosequencing.Results: Methylation of the HPV E2 region was associated with response to treatment. For cidofovir (n = 30), median E2 methylation was significantly higher in patients who responded (P ≤ 0.0001); E2 methylation >4% predicted response with 88.2% sensitivity and 84.6% specificity. For imiquimod (n = 33), median E2 methylation was lower in patients who responded to treatment (P = 0.03; not significant after Bonferroni correction); E2 methylation <4% predicted response with 70.6% sensitivity and 62.5% specificity.Conclusions: These data indicate that cidofovir and imiquimod may be effective in two biologically defined groups. HPV E2 DNA methylation demonstrated potential as a predictive biomarker for the treatment of VIN with cidofovir and may warrant investigation in a biomarker-guided clinical trial. Clin Cancer Res; 23(18); 5460-8. ©2017 AACR.

Health-Related Quality of Life in SCALOP, a Randomized Phase 2 Trial Comparing Chemoradiation Therapy Regimens in Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer.

PURPOSE: Chemoradiation therapy (CRT) for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) provides survival benefits but may result in considerable toxicity. Health-related quality of life (HRQL) measurements during CRT have not been widely reported. This paper reports HRQL data from the Selective Chemoradiation in Advanced Localised Pancreatic Cancer (SCALOP) trial, including validation of the QLQ-PAN26 tool in CRT. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, nonmetastatic carcinoma of the pancreas were eligible. Following 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GEMCAP) chemotherapy, patients with stable and responding disease were randomized to a further cycle of GEMCAP followed by capecitabine- or gemcitabine-based CRT. HRQL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the EORTC Pancreatic Cancer module (PAN26). RESULTS: A total of 114 patients from 28 UK centers were registered and 74 patients randomized. There was improvement in the majority of HRQL scales during induction chemotherapy. Patients with significant deterioration in fatigue, appetite loss, and gastrointestinal symptoms during CRT recovered within 3 weeks following CRT. Differences in changes in HRQL scores between trial arms rarely reached statistical significance; however, where they did, they favored capecitabine therapy. PAN26 scales had good internal consistency and were able to distinguish between subgroups of patients experiencing toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Although there is deterioration in HRQL following CRT, this resolves within 3 weeks. HRQL data support the use of capecitabine- over gemcitabine-based chemoradiation. The QLQ-PAN26 is a reliable and valid tool for use in patients receiving CRT.

NEOSCOPE: a randomised Phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by either oxaliplatin/capecitabine or paclitaxel/carboplatin based chemoradiation as pre-operative regimen for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Both oxaliplatin/capecitabine-based chemoradiation (OXCAP-RT) and carboplatin-paclitaxel based radiation (CarPac-RT) are active regimens in oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but no randomised study has compared their efficacy and toxicity. This randomised phase II "pick a winner" trial will identify the optimum regimen to take forward to a future phase III trial against neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the current standard in the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or Siewert Type 1-2 gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), ≥T3 and/or ≥ N1 are eligible for the study. Following two cycles of induction OXCAP chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 D1, Cape 625 mg/m(2) D1-21, q 3 wk), patients are randomised 1:1 to OXCAP-RT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) Day 1,15,29; capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily on days of RT; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks) or CarPac-RT (Carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15,22,29; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks). Restaging CT/PET-CT is performed 4-6 weeks after CRT, and a two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is performed six to eight weeks after CRT. The primary end-point is pathological complete response rate (pCR) at resection and will include central review. Secondary endpoints include: recruitment rate, toxicity, 30-day surgical morbidity/mortality, resection margin positivity rate and overall survival (median, 3- and 5-yr OS. 76 patients (38/arm) gives 90% power and one-sided type 1 error of 10% if patients on one novel treatment have a response rate of 35% while the second treatment has a response rate of 15%. A detailed RT Quality Assurance (RTQA) programme includes a detailed RT protocol and guidance document, pre-accrual RT workshop, outlining exercise, and central evaluation of contouring and planning. This trial has been funded by Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614), sponsored by Velindre NHS Trust and conducted through the Wales Cancer Trials Unit at Cardiff University on behalf of the NCRI Upper GI CSG. DISCUSSION: Following encouraging results from previous trials, there is an interest in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and CRT containing regimens for treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. NEOSCOPE will first establish the efficacy, safety and feasibility of two different neo-adjuvant CRT regimens prior to a potential phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2012-000640-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829 .

Activity, safety, and feasibility of cidofovir and imiquimod for treatment of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (RT³VIN): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Vulval intraepithelial neoplasia is a skin disorder affecting the vulva that, if left untreated, can become cancerous. Currently, the standard treatment for patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia is surgery, but this approach does not guarantee cure and can be disfiguring, causing physical and psychological problems, particularly in women of reproductive age. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of two topical treatments--cidofovir and imiquimod--as an alternative to surgery in female patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia. METHODS: We recruited female patients (age 16 years or older) from 32 centres to an open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial. Eligibility criteria were biopsy-proven vulval intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 and at least one lesion that could be measured accurately. We randomly allocated patients to topical treatment with either 1% cidofovir (supplied as a gel in a 10 g tube, to last 6 weeks) or 5% imiquimod (one 250 mg sachet for every application), to be self-applied three times a week for a maximum of 24 weeks. Randomisation (1:1) was done by stratified minimisation via a central computerised system, with stratification by hospital, disease focality, and presentation stage. The primary endpoint was a histologically confirmed complete response at the post-treatment assessment visit 6 weeks after the end of treatment (a maximum of 30 weeks after treatment started). Analysis of the primary endpoint was by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were toxic effects (to assess safety) and adherence to treatment (to assess feasibility). We present results after all patients had reached the primary endpoint assessment point at 6 weeks; 2-year follow-up of complete responders continues. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, ISRCTN 34420460. FINDINGS: Between Oct 21, 2009, and Jan 11, 2013, 180 participants were enrolled to the study; 89 patients were randomly allocated cidofovir and 91 were assigned imiquimod. At the post-treatment assessment visit, a complete response had been achieved by 41 (46%; 90% CI 37·0-55·3) patients allocated cidofovir and by 42 (46%; 37·2-55·3) patients assigned imiquimod. After 6 weeks of treatment, 156 (87%) patients (78 in each group) had adhered to the treatment regimen. Five patients in the cidofovir group and seven in the imiquimod group either withdrew or were lost to follow-up before the first 6-week safety assessment. Adverse events of grade 3 or higher were reported in 31 (37%) of 84 patients allocated cidofovir and 39 (46%) of 84 patients assigned imiquimod; the most frequent grade 3 and 4 events were pain in the vulva, pruritus, fatigue, and headache. INTERPRETATION: Cidofovir and imiquimod were active, safe, and feasible for treatment of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia and warrant further investigation in a phase 3 setting. Both drugs are effective alternatives to surgery for female patients with vulval intraepithelial neoplasia after exclusion of occult invasive disease. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

A feasibility study examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of offering a chest X-ray to higher-risk patients with chest symptoms: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In order to improve lung cancer survival in the UK, a greater proportion of resectable cancers must be diagnosed. It is likely that resectability rates would be increased by more timely diagnosis. Aside from screening, the only way of achieving this is to reduce the time to diagnosis in symptomatic cancers. Currently, lung cancers are mainly diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs) using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray, which recommend urgent imaging or referral for patients who have one of a number of chest symptoms for more than 3 weeks. We are proposing to expand this recommendation to include one of a number of chest symptoms of any duration in higher-risk patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We intend to conduct a trial of imaging in these higher-risk patients and compare it with NICE guidelines to see if imaging improves stage at diagnosis and resection rates. This trial would have to be large (and consequently resource-intensive) because most of these patients will not have lung cancer, making optimal design crucial. We are therefore conducting a pilot trial that will ascertain the feasibility of running a full trial and provide key information that will be required in order to design the full trial. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and inform the design of a large, UK-wide, clinical trial of a change to the NICE guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray for suspected lung cancer. It utilizes a combination of workshop, health economic, quality of life, qualitative, and quantitative methods in order to fully assess feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01344005.

Chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab in patients with oesophageal cancer (SCOPE1): a multicentre, phase 2/3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Definitive chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is an alternative to surgery for the curative treatment of oesophageal carcinoma. The SCOPE1 trial aimed to investigate the addition of cetuximab to cisplatin and fluoropyrimidine-based definitive CRT in patients with localised oesophageal squamous-cell cancer and adenocarcinomas to assess activity, safety, and feasibility of use. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2/3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older from UK radiotherapy centres who had non-metastatic, histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus (adenocarcinoma, squamous-cell, or undifferentiated; WHO status 0-1; stage I-III disease) and been selected to receive definitive CRT. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via a central computerised system using stratified minimisation (with an 80:20 random element) to receive CRT alone or CRT with cetuximab (400 mg/m(2) on day 1 followed by 250 mg/m(2) weekly), stratified by recruiting hospital, primary reason for not having surgery, tumour histology, and tumour stage. CRT consisted of cisplatin 60 mg/m(2) (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-21) for four cycles; cycles three and four were given concurrently with 50 Gy in 25 fractions of radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients who were treatment failure free at week 24 for the phase 2 trial and overall survival for the phase 3 trial, both measured from randomisation. We analysed data by intention to treat. This trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 47718479. FINDINGS: 258 patients (129 assigned to each treatment group) from 36 UK centres were recruited between Feb 7, 2008, and Feb 22, 2012. Recruitment was stopped without continuation to phase 3 because the trial met criteria for futility, but we continued to follow-up recruited patients until all had reached at least 24-week follow-up (median follow-up of patients who survived was 16.8 months [IQR 11.2-24.5]). Fewer patients were treatment failure free at 24 weeks in the CRT plus cetuximab group (79 of 119 patients [66·4%, 90% CI 58·6-73·6]) than in the CRT only group (93 of 121 patients [76.9%, 69.7-83.0]). The CRT plus cetuximab group also had shorter median overall survival (22.1 months [95% CI 15.1-24.5] vs 25.4 months [20.5-37.9]; adjusted HR 1.53 [95% CI 1.03-2.27]; p=0.035). Patients who received CRT plus cetuximab had more non-haematological grade 3 or 4 toxicities (102 [79%] of 129 patients vs 81 [63%] of 129 patients; p=0.004). The most common grade 3 or 4 toxicities were low white blood cell count (14 [11%] in the CRT plus cetuximab group vs 21 [16%] in the CRT only group), low absolute neutrophil count (15 [12%] vs 24 [19%]), fatigue (26 [20%] vs 25 [19%]), and dysphagia (35 [27%] vs 37 [29%]). INTERPRETATION: The addition of cetuximab to standard chemotherapy and radiotherapy cannot be recommended for patients with oesophageal cancer suitable for definitive CRT. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Gemcitabine-based or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

SCOPE1: a randomised phase II/III multicentre clinical trial of definitive chemoradiation, with or without cetuximab, in carcinoma of the oesophagus.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery due to the presence of co-morbidity or extent of disease, and is a standard treatment option for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Modern regimens of chemoradiotherapy can lead to significant long-term survival. However the majority of patients will die of their disease, most commonly with local progression/recurrence of their tumours. Cetuximab may overcome one of the principal mechanisms of tumour radio-resistance, namely tumour repopulation, in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.The purpose of this research is first to determine whether the addition of cetuximab to definitive chemoradiotherapy for treatment of patients with non-metastatic carcinoma of the oesophagus is active (in terms of failure-free rate), safe, and feasible within the context of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in the UK. If the first stage is successful then the trial will continue to accrue sufficient patients to establish whether the addition of cetuximab to the standard treatment improves overall survival. METHODS/DESIGN: SCOPE1 is a two arm, open, randomised multicentre Phase II/III trial. Eligible patients will have histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus and have been chosen to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy by an accredited multidisciplinary team including a specialist Upper GI surgeon. 420 patients will be randomised to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab using a 1:1 allocation ratio.During Phase II of the study, the trial will assess safety (toxicity), activity (failure-free rate) and feasibility (recruitment rate and protocol dose modifications/delays) in 90 patients in the experimental arm. If the experimental arm is found to be active, safe, and feasible by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee then recruitment will continue into Phase III. This second stage will recruit a further 120 patients into each arm and compare the overall survival of both groups.All patients randomised into Phase II will contribute to the Phase III comparison of overall survival. In addition to overall survival, Phase III of the study will also assess toxicity, health related quality of life and cost effectiveness. A detailed radiotherapy protocol and quality assurance procedure has been incorporated into this trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN47718479.