UK national cohort of anal cancer treated with intensity-modulated radiotherapy: One-year oncological and patient-reported outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for anal cancer. Following national UK implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), this prospective, national cohort evaluates the one-year oncological outcomes and patient-reported toxicity outcomes (PRO) after treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national cohort of UK cancer centers implementing IMRT was carried out between February to July 2015. Cancer centers provided data on oncological outcomes, including survival, and disease and colostomy status at one-year. EORTC-QLQ core (C30) and colorectal (CR29) questionnaires were completed at baseline and one-year followup. The PRO scores at baseline and one year were compared. RESULTS: 40 UK Cancer Centers returned data with a total of 187 patients included in the analysis. 92% received mitomycin with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. One-year overall survival was 94%; 84% were disease-free and 86% colostomy-free at one-year followup. At one year, PRO results found significant improvements in buttock pain, blood and mucus in stools, pain, constipation, appetite loss, and health anxiety compared to baseline. No significant deteriorations were reported in diarrhea, bowel frequency, and flatulence. Urinary symptom scores were low at one year. Moderate impotence symptoms at baseline remained at one year, and a moderate deterioration in dyspareunia reported. CONCLUSIONS: With national anal cancer IMRT implementation, at this early pre-defined time point, one-year oncological outcomes were reassuring and resulted in good disease-related symptom control. one-year symptomatic complications following CRT for anal cancer using IMRT techniques appear to be relatively mild. These PRO results provide a basis to benchmark future studies.

Results of the randomized phase IIB ARCTIC trial of low-dose rituximab in previously untreated CLL.

ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The trial hypothesized that including mitoxantrone with low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) would be non-inferior to FCR. A total of 200 patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to IWCLL criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, safety and cost-effectiveness. The trial closed following a pre-planned interim analysis. At final analysis, CR rates were 76 FCR vs 55% FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.73). MRD-negativity rates were 54 FCR vs 44% FCM-miniR. More participants experienced serious adverse reactions with FCM-miniR (49%) compared to FCR (41%). There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. In summary, FCM-miniR is less well tolerated than FCR with an inferior response and MRD-negativity rate and increased toxicity, and will not be taken forward into a confirmatory trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields high response rates compared to historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

Results of the randomized phase IIB ADMIRE trial of FCR with or without mitoxantrone in previously untreated CLL.

ADMIRE was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB superiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Conventional front-line therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Initial evidence from non-randomized phase II trials suggested that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR (FCM-R) improved remission rates. Two hundred and fifteen patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and safety. At final analysis, CR rates were 69.8 FCR vs 69.3% FCM-R (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.53-1.79), P=0.932). MRD-negativity rates were 59.3 FCR vs 50.5% FCM-R (adjusted OR: 0.70; 95% CI: (0.39-1.26), P=0.231). During treatment, 60.0% (n=129) of participants received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as secondary prophylaxis for neutropenia, a lower proportion on FCR compared with FCM-R (56.1 vs 63.9%). The toxicity of both regimens was acceptable. There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. The trial demonstrated that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR did not increase the depth of response. Oral FCR was well tolerated and resulted in impressive responses in terms of CR rates and MRD negativity compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

Erratum to: The SABRTooth feasibility trial protocol: a study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s40814-016-0046-2.].

The SABRTooth feasibility trial protocol: a study to determine the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a phase III randomised controlled trial comparing stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

BACKGROUND: Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is potentially curable, and surgery is considered to be the standard of care for patients with good performance status and minimal co-morbidity. However, a significant proportion of patients with stage I NSCLC have a poorer performance status and significant medical co-morbidity that make them at higher risk of morbidity and mortality from surgery. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which uses modern radiotherapeutic techniques to deliver large doses of radiation, has shown superiority over conventional radiotherapy in terms of local control and toxicity and is a standard of care for patients with stage I NSCLC who are at too high risk for surgery. However, it is not known whether surgery or SABR is the most effective in patients with stage I NSCLC who are suitable for surgery but are less fit and at higher risk surgical complications. Previous randomised studies have failed to recruit in this setting, and therefore, a feasibility study is required to see whether a full randomised control trial would be possible. METHODS/DESIGN: SABRTooth is a UK-based, multi-centre, open-label, two-group individually (1:1) randomised controlled feasibility study in patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk from surgical resection. The study will assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive large-scale phase III trial. The primary objective is to assess recruitment rates to provide evidence that, when scaled up, recruitment to a large phase III trial would be possible; the target recruitment being 54 patients in total, over a 21-month period. There are multiple secondary and exploratory objectives designed to explore the optimum recruitment and data collection strategies to help optimise the design of a future phase III trial. DISCUSSION: To know whether SABR is a better, equivalent or inferior alternative to surgery for higher risk patients is a key question in lung cancer. Other studies comparing SABR to surgery have closed early due to poor recruitment, and therefore, the SABRTooth feasibility study has been designed around the UK National Health Service (NHS) cancer pathway incorporating many design features in order to maximise recruitment for a future definitive phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: controlled-trials.com ISRCTN13029788.

Managing 'suspicious glaucomatous discs' identified during digital-photography-based diabetic retinopathy screening.

PURPOSE: An audit to demonstrate the outcome of patients identified with suspicious glaucomatous discs within a digital-photography-based diabetic retinopathy screening programme. METHODS: Primary care based digital photographic screening was performed utilising mydriasis and two-field digital photography for all patients with diabetes. Patients identified with discs suspicious of glaucomatous optic neuropathy (GON) were initially referred to an accredited community-based optometrist for further assessment. Some patients were then referred to secondary care where appropriate. RESULTS: From 1st April 2002 to 31st March 2003 a total of 3868 patients were screened for diabetic retinopathy. This audit revealed that 55 subjects were identified by retinal screeners as having discs suspicious of glaucoma. A total of 29 were already under glaucoma clinic review. A total of 23/26 remaining were referred for an assessment by an accredited optometrist. Of these 13 were normal, 6 were referred to secondary care and 4 failed to attend. The three remaining were referred directly to secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: All nine referrals to secondary care were deemed appropriate by a glaucoma specialist. This suggests that the system described does not lead to over-referral of suspicious discs - although the issue of how many glaucomatous discs are missed during screening (false negatives) will only be answered in the longer term.