Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal cancer treatment (ICON8): overall survival results from an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer is carboplatin and paclitaxel administered once every 3 weeks. The JGOG 3016 trial reported significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly (ie, once every 3 weeks) carboplatin. However, this benefit was not observed in the previously reported progression-free survival results of ICON8. Here, we present the final coprimary outcomes of overall survival and updated progression-free survival analyses of ICON8. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial (ICON8), women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian, primary peritoneal, or fallopian tube carcinoma (here collectively termed ovarian cancer, as defined by International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] 1988 criteria) and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2 were recruited from 117 hospitals with oncology departments in the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Mexico, South Korea, and Ireland. Patients could enter the trial after immediate primary surgery (IPS) or with planned delayed primary surgery (DPS) during chemotherapy, or could have no planned surgery. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1), using the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London randomisation line with stratification by Gynecologic Cancer Intergroup group, FIGO disease stage, and outcome and timing of surgery, to either 3-weekly carboplatin area under the curve (AUC)5 or AUC6 and 3-weekly paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 (control; group 1), 3-weekly carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 2), or weekly carboplatin AUC2 and weekly paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 (group 3), all administered via intravenous infusion for a total of six 21-day cycles. Coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival, with comparisons done between group 2 and group 1, and group 3 and group 1, in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started at least one chemotherapy cycle. The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01654146, and ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN10356387, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 patients were randomly assigned to group 1 (n=522), group 2 (n=523), or group 3 (n=521). The median age was 62 years (IQR 54-68), 1073 (69%) of 1566 patients had high-grade serous carcinoma, 1119 (71%) had stage IIIC-IV disease, and 745 (48%) had IPS. As of data cutoff (March 31, 2020), with a median follow-up of 69 months (IQR 61-75), no significant difference in overall survival was observed in either comparison: median overall survival of 47·4 months (95% CI 43·1-54·8) in group 1, 54·8 months (46·6-61·6) in group 2, and 53·4 months (49·2-59·6) in group 3 (group 2 vs group 1: hazard ratio 0·87 [97·5% CI 0·73-1·05]; group 3 vs group 1: 0·91 [0·76-1·09]). No significant difference was observed for progression-free survival in either comparison and evidence of non-proportional hazards was seen (p=0·037), with restricted mean survival time of 23·9 months (97·5% CI 22·1-25·6) in group 1, 25·3 months (23·6-27·1) in group 2, and 24·8 months (23·0-26·5) in group 3. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were reduced neutrophil count (78 [15%] of 511 patients in group 1, 183 [36%] of 514 in group 2, and 154 [30%] of 513 in group 3), reduced white blood cell count (22 [4%] in group 1, 80 [16%] in group 2, and 71 [14%] in group 3), and anaemia (26 [5%] in group 1, 66 [13%] in group 2, and 24 [5%] in group 3). No new serious adverse events were reported. Seven treatment-related deaths were reported (two in group 1, four in group 2, and one in group 3). INTERPRETATION: In our cohort of predominantly European women with epithelial ovarian cancer, we found that first-line weekly dose-dense chemotherapy did not improve overall or progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy and should not be used as part of standard multimodality front-line therapy in this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, and Cancer Australia.

Quality of Life of Patients With Osteosarcoma in the European American Osteosarcoma Study-1 (EURAMOS-1): Development and Implementation of a Questionnaire Substudy.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life (QoL) of patients with osteosarcoma (OS) may be adversely affected by the disease or its treatment. Therefore, it is important to understand the QoL of patients undergoing treatment for OS to improve the QoL. We report on the first prospective international QoL study that was embedded within a large randomized clinical trial from 4 national study groups. OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to describe the QoL study development, methodology, accrual details, and characteristics of the QoL cohort. METHODS: A total of 2260 patients registered in the EURopean AMerican Osteosarcoma Study-1 (EURAMOS-1), of whom 97.92% (2213/2260) were eligible for the optional QoL assessment and could participate in terms of questionnaire availability. Overall, 61.86% (1369/2213) of patients and/or proxies completed the QoL evaluation at the first assessment time point (E1) after the start of preoperative treatment. The QoL measures used (self- and/or proxy reports) depending on the patient's age and national study group. Participants and nonparticipants in the ancillary QoL study were compared regarding relevant demographic and disease-related characteristics at registration in the trial. RESULTS: The participation rate at time point E1 did not differ with regard to age, gender, the occurrence of pathological fracture, or the presence of any metastases at diagnosis. No differences were found regarding the primary tumor site. Only the national study group affiliation had an influence on participation. Participation decreased linearly with trial progress up to 20% at the final time point of QoL assessment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the feasibility of international cooperation for the purpose of assessing and understanding the QoL of pediatric and adolescent/young adult patients with cancer. Future outcomes of this QoL substudy will help to adapt interventions to improve QoL.

Impact of retrospective data verification to prepare the ICON6 trial for use in a marketing authorization application.

BACKGROUND: The ICON6 trial (ISRCTN68510403) is a phase III academic-led, international, randomized, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the addition of cediranib to chemotherapy in recurrent ovarian cancer. It investigated the use of placebo during chemotherapy and maintenance (arm A), cediranib alongside chemotherapy followed by placebo maintenance (arm B) and cediranib throughout both periods (arm C). Results of the primary comparison showed a meaningful gain in progression-free survival (time to progression or death from any cause) when comparing arm A (placebo) with arm C (cediranib). As a consequence of the positive results, AstraZeneca was engaged with the Medical Research Council trials unit to discuss regulatory submission using ICON6 as the single pivotal trial. METHODS: A relatively limited level of on-site monitoring, single data entry and investigator's local evaluation of progression were used on trial. In order to submit a license application, it was decided that (a) extensive retrospective source data verification of medical records against case report forms should be performed, (b) further quality control checks for accuracy of data entry should be performed and (c) blinded independent central review of images used to define progression should be undertaken. To assess the value of these extra activities, we summarize the impact on both efficacy and safety outcomes. RESULTS: Data point changes were minimal; those key to the primary results had a 0.47% error rate (36/7686), and supporting data points had a 0.18% error rate (109/59,261). The impact of the source data verification and quality control processes were analyzed jointly. The conclusion drawn for the primary outcome measure of progression-free survival between arm A and arm C was unchanged. The log-rank test p-value changed only at the sixth decimal place, the hazard ratio does not change from 0.57 with the exception of a marginal change in its upper bound (0.74-0.73) and the median progression-free survival benefit from arm C remained at 2.4 months. Separately, the blinded independent central review of progression scans was performed as a sensitivity analysis. Estimates and p values varied slightly but overall demonstrated a difference in arms, which is consistent with the initial result. Some increases in toxicity were observed, though these were generally minor, with the exception of hypertension. However, none of these increases were systematically biased toward one arm. CONCLUSION: The conduct of this pragmatic, academic-sponsored trial was sufficient given the robustness of the results, shown by the results remaining largely unchanged following retrospective verification despite not being designed for use in a marketing authorization. The burden of such comprehensive retrospective effort required to ensure the results of ICON6 were acceptable to regulators is difficult to justify.