Imaging Modality and Frequency in Surveillance of Stage I Seminoma Testicular Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial (TRISST).

PURPOSE: Survival in stage I seminoma is almost 100%. Computed tomography (CT) surveillance is an international standard of care, avoiding adjuvant therapy. In this young population, minimizing irradiation is vital. The Trial of Imaging and Surveillance in Seminoma Testis (TRISST) assessed whether magnetic resonance images (MRIs) or a reduced scan schedule could be used without an unacceptable increase in advanced relapses. METHODS: A phase III, noninferiority, factorial trial. Eligible participants had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma with no adjuvant therapy planned. Random assignment was to seven CTs (6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months); seven MRIs (same schedule); three CTs (6, 18, and 36 months); or three MRIs. The primary outcome was 6-year incidence of Royal Marsden Hospital stage ≥ IIC relapse (> 5 cm), aiming to exclude increases ≥ 5.7% (from 5.7% to 11.4%) with MRI (v CT) or three scans (v 7); target N = 660, all contributing to both comparisons. Secondary outcomes include relapse ≥ 3 cm, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-nine patients enrolled (35 UK centers, 2008-2014); mean tumor size was 2.9 cm, and 358 (54%) were low risk (< 4 cm, no rete testis invasion). With a median follow-up of 72 months, 82 (12%) relapsed. Stage ≥ IIC relapse was rare (10 events). Although statistically noninferior, more events occurred with three scans (nine, 2.8%) versus seven scans (one, 0.3%): 2.5% absolute increase, 90% CI (1.0 to 4.1). Only 4/9 could have potentially been detected earlier with seven scans. Noninferiority of MRI versus CT was also shown; fewer events occurred with MRI (two [0.6%] v eight [2.6%]), 1.9% decrease (-3.5 to -0.3). Per-protocol analyses confirmed noninferiority. Five-year survival was 99%, with no tumor-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Surveillance is a safe management approach-advanced relapse is rare, salvage treatment successful, and outcomes excellent, regardless of imaging frequency or modality. MRI can be recommended to reduce irradiation; and no adverse impact on long-term outcomes was seen with a reduced schedule.

Dynamic methods for ongoing assessment of site-level risk in risk-based monitoring of clinical trials: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: It is increasingly recognised that reliance on frequent site visits for monitoring clinical trials is inefficient. Regulators and trialists have recently encouraged more risk-based monitoring. Risk assessment should take place before a trial begins to define the overarching monitoring strategy. It can also be done on an ongoing basis, to target sites for monitoring activity. Various methods have been proposed for such prioritisation, often using terms like 'central statistical monitoring', 'triggered monitoring' or, as in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidance, 'targeted on-site monitoring'. We conducted a scoping review to identify such methods, to establish if any were supported by adequate evidence to allow wider implementation, and to guide future developments in this field of research. METHODS: We used seven publication databases, two sets of methodological conference abstracts and an Internet search engine to identify methods for using centrally held trial data to assess site conduct during a trial. We included only reports in English, and excluded reports published before 1996 or not directly relevant to our research question. We used reference and citation searches to find additional relevant reports. We extracted data using a predefined template. We contacted authors to request additional information about included reports. RESULTS: We included 30 reports in our final dataset, of which 21 were peer-reviewed publications. In all, 20 reports described central statistical monitoring methods (of which 7 focussed on detection of fraud or misconduct) and 9 described triggered monitoring methods; 21 reports included some assessment of their methods' effectiveness, typically exploring the methods' characteristics using real trial data without known integrity issues. Of the 21 with some effectiveness assessment, most contained limited information about whether or not concerns identified through central monitoring constituted meaningful problems. Several reports demonstrated good classification ability based on more than one classification statistic, but never without caveats of unclear reporting or other classification statistics being low or unavailable. Some reports commented on cost savings from reduced on-site monitoring, but none gave detailed costings for the development and maintenance of central monitoring methods themselves. CONCLUSION: Our review identified various proposed methods, some of which could be combined within the same trial. The apparent emphasis on fraud detection may not be proportionate in all trial settings. Despite some promising evidence and some self-justifying benefits for data cleaning activity, many proposed methods have limitations that may currently prevent their routine use for targeting trial monitoring activity. The implementation costs, or uncertainty about these, may also be a barrier. We make recommendations for how the evidence-base supporting these methods could be improved.

Assessing the potential for prevention or earlier detection of on-site monitoring findings from randomised controlled trials: Further analyses of findings from the prospective TEMPER triggered monitoring study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Clinical trials should be designed and managed to minimise important errors with potential to compromise patient safety or data integrity, employ monitoring practices that detect and correct important errors quickly, and take robust action to prevent repetition. Regulators highlight the use of risk-based monitoring, making greater use of centralised monitoring and reducing reliance on centre visits. The TEMPER study was a prospective evaluation of triggered monitoring (a risk-based monitoring method), whereby centres are prioritised for visits based on central monitoring results. Conducted in three UK-based randomised cancer treatment trials of investigational medicine products with time-to-event outcomes, it found high levels of serious findings at triggered centre visits but also at visits to matched control centres that, based on central monitoring, were not of concern. Here, we report a detailed review of the serious findings from TEMPER centre visits. We sought to identify feasible, centralised processes which might detect or prevent these findings without a centre visit. METHODS: The primary outcome of this study was the proportion of all 'major' and 'critical' TEMPER centre visit findings theoretically detectable or preventable through a feasible, centralised process. To devise processes, we considered a representative example of each finding type through an internal consensus exercise. This involved (a) agreeing the potential, by some described process, for each finding type to be centrally detected or prevented and (b) agreeing a proposed feasibility score for each proposed process. To further assess feasibility, we ran a consultation exercise, whereby the proposed processes were reviewed and rated for feasibility by invited external trialists. RESULTS: In TEMPER, 312 major or critical findings were identified at 94 visits. These findings comprised 120 distinct issues, for which we proposed 56 different centralised processes. Following independent review of the feasibility of the proposed processes by 87 consultation respondents across eight different trial stakeholder groups, we conclude that 306/312 (98%) findings could theoretically be prevented or identified centrally. Of the processes deemed feasible, those relating to informed consent could have the most impact. Of processes not currently deemed feasible, those involving use of electronic health records are among those with the largest potential benefit. CONCLUSIONS: This work presents a best-case scenario, where a large majority of monitoring findings were deemed theoretically preventable or detectable by central processes. Caveats include the cost of applying all necessary methods, and the resource implications of enhanced central monitoring for both centre and trials unit staff. Our results will inform future monitoring plans and emphasise the importance of continued critical review of monitoring processes and outcomes to ensure they remain appropriate.

Long-term outcomes with intensive induction chemotherapy (carboplatin, bleomycin, vincristine and cisplatin/bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) and standard bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin in poor prognosis germ cell tumours: A randomised phase II trial (ISRCTN53643604).

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of men with poor prognosis, non-seminoma germ cell tumours (GCTs) die with standard BEP (bleomycin, etoposide and cisplatin) chemotherapy. An intensive regimen, CBOP/BEP (carboplatin, bleomycin, vincristine and cisplatin/BEP), met response targets in a randomised, phase II trial (74% complete response or partial response marker negative, 90% confidence interval (CI) 61%-85%). AIM: To assess long-term outcomes and late toxicity associated with CBOP/BEP. METHODS: Patients with poor prognosis extracranial GCT were randomised to 4xBEP or CBOP/BEP (2xCBOP, 2xBO, 3xBEP with 15,000iu of bleomycin). Low-dose, stabilising chemotherapy before entry was permitted. Response rates (primary outcome) were reported previously. Here, we report secondary outcomes: progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and late toxicity. Prognostic factors and the impact of marker decline are assessed in exploratory analysis. RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients (43 CBOP/BEP) were randomised. After median 63 months follow-up, 3-year PFS is 55.7% (95% CI: 39.7%, 69.0%) for CBOP/BEP and 38.7% (95% CI: 24.7%, 52.4%) for BEP (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.59 (0.33, 1.06), p = 0.079). Three-year OS is 65.0% (48.8%, 77.2%) and 58.5% (43.0%, 71.2%), respectively (HR: 0.79 (0.41, 1.52), p = 0.49). Twelve-month toxicity was affected by subsequent treatments, with no clear differences between arms. Stabilising chemotherapy was associated with poorer PFS (HR: 2.09 (1.14, 3.81), p = 0.017), whereas unfavourable marker decline, in 60 (70%) patients, was not. CONCLUSION: Although not powered for PFS, results for CBOP/BEP are promising. Impact on OS was less clear (and will be affected by subsequent therapy). Further study in an international phase III trial is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 53643604.

Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy in first-line epithelial ovarian, fallopian tube, or primary peritoneal carcinoma treatment (ICON8): primary progression free survival analysis results from a GCIG phase 3 randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Carboplatin and paclitaxel administered every 3 weeks is standard-of-care first-line chemotherapy for epithelial ovarian cancer. The Japanese JGOG3016 trial showed a significant improvement in progression-free and overall survival with dose-dense weekly paclitaxel and 3-weekly carboplatin. In this study, we aimed to compare efficacy and safety of two dose-dense weekly regimens to standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in a predominantly European population with epithelial ovarian cancer. METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, women with newly diagnosed International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics stage IC-IV epithelial ovarian cancer were randomly assigned to group 1 (carboplatin area under the curve [AUC]5 or AUC6 and 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel every 3 weeks), group 2 (carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 every 3 weeks and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly), or group 3 (carboplatin AUC2 and 80 mg/m2 paclitaxel weekly). Written informed consent was provided by all women who entered the trial. The protocol had the appropriate national research ethics committee approval for the countries where the study was conducted. Patients entered the trial after immediate primary surgery, or before neoadjuvant chemotherapy with subsequent planned delayed primary surgery. The trial coprimary outcomes were progression-free survival and overall survival. Data analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis, and were powered to detect a hazard ratio of 0·75 in progression-free survival. The main comparisons were between the control group (group 1) and each of the weekly research groups (groups 2 and 3). FINDINGS: Between June 6, 2011, and Nov 28, 2014, 1566 women were randomly assigned to treatment. 72% (365), completed six protocol-defined treatment cycles in group 1, 60% (305) in group 2, and 63% (322) in group 3, although 90% (454), 89% (454), and 85% (437) completed six platinum-based chemotherapy cycles, respectively. Paclitaxel dose intensification was achieved with weekly treatment (median total paclitaxel dose 1010 mg/m2 in group 1; 1233 mg/m2 in group 2; 1274 mg/m2 in group 3). By February, 2017, 1018 (65%) patients had experienced disease progression. No significant progression-free survival increase was observed with either weekly regimen (restricted mean survival time 24·4 months [97·5% CI 23·0-26·0] in group 1, 24·9 months [24·0-25·9] in group 2, 25·3 months [23·9-26·9] in group 3; median progression-free survival 17·7 months [IQR 10·6-not reached] in group 1, 20·8 months [11·9-59·0] in group 2, 21·0 months [12·0-54·0] in group 3; log-rank p=0·35 for group 2 vs group 1; group 3 vs 1 p=0·51). Although grade 3 or 4 toxic effects increased with weekly treatment, these effects were predominantly uncomplicated. Febrile neutropenia and sensory neuropathy incidences were similar across groups. INTERPRETATION: Weekly dose-dense chemotherapy can be delivered successfully as first-line treatment for epithelial ovarian cancer but does not significantly improve progression-free survival compared with standard 3-weekly chemotherapy in predominantly European populations. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Health Research Board in Ireland, Irish Cancer Society, Cancer Australia.

Safety and Efficacy of the Addition of Lapatinib to Perioperative Chemotherapy for Resectable HER2-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration for ERBB/HER2 testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2 of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2 of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned. RESULTS: Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN.org identifier: 46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier: 2006-000811-12.

Implementing monitoring triggers and matching of triggered and control sites in the TEMPER study: a description and evaluation of a triggered monitoring management system.

BACKGROUND: Triggered monitoring in clinical trials is a risk-based monitoring approach where triggers (centrally monitored, predefined key risk and performance indicators) drive the extent, timing, and frequency of monitoring visits. The TEMPER study used a prospective, matched-pair design to evaluate the use of a triggered monitoring strategy, comparing findings from triggered monitoring visits with those from matched control sites. To facilitate this study, we developed a bespoke risk-based monitoring system: the TEMPER Management System. METHODS: The TEMPER Management System comprises a web application (the front end), an SQL server database (the back end) to store the data generated for TEMPER, and a reporting function to aid users in study processes such as the selection of triggered sites. Triggers based on current practice were specified for three clinical trials and were implemented in the system. Trigger data were generated in the system using data extracted from the trial databases to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. Matching of the chosen triggered sites with untriggered control sites was also performed in the system, while data entry screens facilitated the collection and management of the data from findings gathered at monitoring visits. RESULTS: There were 38 triggers specified for the participating trials. Using these, 42 triggered sites were chosen and matched with control sites. Monitoring visits were carried out to all sites, and visit findings were entered into the TEMPER Management System. Finally, data extracted from the system were used for analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The TEMPER Management System made possible the completion of the TEMPER study. It implemented an approach of standardising the automation of current-practice triggers, and the generation of trigger data to inform the selection of triggered sites to visit. It also implemented a matching algorithm informing the selection of matched control sites. We hope that by publishing this paper it encourages other trialists to share their approaches to, and experiences of, triggered monitoring and other risk-based monitoring systems.

Triggered or routine site monitoring visits for randomised controlled trials: results of TEMPER, a prospective, matched-pair study.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: In multi-site clinical trials, where trial data and conduct are scrutinised centrally with pre-specified triggers for visits to sites, targeted monitoring may be an efficient way to prioritise on-site monitoring. This approach is widely used in academic trials, but has never been formally evaluated. METHODS: TEMPER assessed the ability of targeted monitoring, as used in three ongoing phase III randomised multi-site oncology trials, to distinguish sites at which higher and lower rates of protocol and/or Good Clinical Practice violations would be found during site visits. Using a prospective, matched-pair design, sites that had been prioritised for visits after having activated 'triggers' were matched with a control ('untriggered') site, which would not usually have been visited at that time. The paired sites were visited within 4 weeks of each other, and visit findings are recorded and categorised according to the seriousness of the deviation. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sites with ≥1 'Major' or 'Critical' finding not previously identified centrally. The study was powered to detect an absolute difference of ≥30% between triggered and untriggered visits. A sensitivity analysis, recommended by the study's blinded endpoint review committee, excluded findings related to re-consent. Additional analyses assessed the prognostic value of individual triggers and data from pre-visit questionnaires completed by site and trials unit staff. RESULTS: In total, 42 matched pairs of visits took place between 2013 and 2016. In the primary analysis, 88.1% of triggered visits had ≥1 new Major/Critical finding, compared to 81.0% of untriggered visits, an absolute difference of 7.1% (95% confidence interval -8.3%, +22.5%; p = 0.365). When re-consent findings were excluded, these figures reduced to 85.7% versus 59.5%, (difference = 26.2%, 95% confidence interval 8.0%, 44.4%; p = 0.007). Individual triggers had modest prognostic value but knowledge of the trial-related activities carried out by site staff may be useful. CONCLUSION: Triggered monitoring approaches, as used in these trials, were not sufficiently discriminatory. The rate of Major and Critical findings was higher than anticipated, but the majority related to consent and re-consent with no indication of systemic problems that would impact trial-wide safety issues or integrity of the results in any of the three trials. Sensitivity analyses suggest triggered monitoring may be of potential use, but needs improvement and investigation of further central monitoring triggers is warranted. TEMPER highlights the need to question and evaluate methods in trial conduct, and should inform further developments in this area.

Pharmacogenetic Analysis of the UK MRC (Medical Research Council) MAGIC Trial: Association of Polymorphisms with Toxicity and Survival in Patients Treated with Perioperative Epirubicin, Cisplatin, and 5-fluorouracil (ECF) Chemotherapy.

Purpose: Germline polymorphisms may affect chemotherapy efficacy and toxicity. We examined the effect of polymorphisms in drug metabolism and DNA repair genes on pathologic response rates, survival, and toxicity for patients randomized to surgery alone or perioperative ECF chemotherapy in the MRC MAGIC trial.Experimental Design: DNA was extracted from nontumor resection formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded (FFPE) blocks. ERCC1, ERCC2, XRCC1, DYPD, and OPRT SNPs were evaluated using Sequenom, GSTP1, GSTT1 deletion, and TYMS (TS) 5' 2R/3R using multiplex PCR. Post PCR amplification, TS 2R/3R and GSTT1 samples underwent gel electrophoresis.Results: Polymorphism data were available for 289 of 456 (63.4%) operated patients. No polymorphism was statistically significantly associated with pathologic response to chemotherapy. Median overall survival (OS) for patients treated with surgery alone with any TS genotype was not different (1.76 years 2R/2R, 1.68 years 2R/3R, 2.09 years 3R/3R). Median OS for patients with a TS 2R/2R genotype treated with chemotherapy was not reached, whereas median OS for 2R/3R and 3R/3R patients were 1.44 and 1.60 years, respectively (log rank P value = 0.0053). The P value for the interaction between treatment arm and genotype (3R/3R and 3R/2R vs. 2R/2R) was 0.029. No polymorphism was statistically significantly associated with chemotherapy toxicity.Conclusions: In MAGIC, patients with a TS 2R/2R genotype appeared to derive a larger benefit from perioperative ECF chemotherapy than patients with 3R containing genotypes. Further exploration of this potential predictive biomarker in this patient population is warranted. Clin Cancer Res; 23(24); 7543-9. ©2017 AACR.

Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen. METHODS: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis. INTERPRETATION: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Identifying additional studies for a systematic review of retention strategies in randomised controlled trials: making contact with trials units and trial methodologists.

BACKGROUND: Search strategies for systematic reviews aim to identify all evidence relevant to the research question posed. Reports of methodological research can be difficult to find leading to biased results in systematic reviews of research methodology. Evidence suggests that contact with investigators can help to identify unpublished research. To identify additional eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for a Cochrane systematic review of strategies to improve retention in RCTs, we conducted a survey of UK clinical trials units (CTUs) and made contact with RCT methodologists. METHODS: Key contacts for all UK CTUs were sent a personalised email with a short questionnaire and summary protocol of the Cochrane methodology review. The questionnaire asked whether a RCT evaluating strategies to improve retention embedded in a RCT had ever been conducted by the CTU. Questions about the stage of completion and publication of such RCTs were included. The summary protocol outlined the aims, eligibility criteria, examples of types of retention strategies, and the primary outcome for the systematic review. Personal communication with RCT methodologists and presentations of preliminary results of the review at conferences were also used to identify additional eligible RCTs. We checked the results of our standard searches to see if eligible studies identified through these additional methods were also found using our standard searches. RESULTS: We identified 14 of the 38 RCTs included in the Cochrane methodology review by contacting trials units and methodologists. Eleven of the 14 RCTs identified by these methods were either published in grey literature, in press or unpublished. Three remaining RCTs were fully published at the time. Six of the RCTs identified were not found through any other searches. The RCTs identified represented data for 6 of 14 RCTs of incentive strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the review), and 6 of 14 RCTs of communication strategies (52% of randomised participants included in the Cochrane review). Data were unavailable for two of the RCTs identified. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological evaluations embedded in RCTs may be unpublished, published in the grey literature or where published, poorly indexed in bibliographic databases. To identify such studies and minimise selection bias in systematic reviews of methodological evaluations, reviewers should consider contacting CTUs and trial methodologists.

Best practice guidance for the use of strategies to improve retention in randomized trials developed from two consensus workshops.

OBJECTIVES: To develop best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Consensus development workshops conducted at two UK Clinical Trials Units. Sixty-six statisticians, clinicians, RCT coordinators, research scientists, research assistants, and data managers associated with RCTs participated. The consensus development workshops were based on the consensus development conference method used to develop best practice for treatment of medical conditions. Workshops commenced with a presentation of the evidence for incentives, communication, questionnaire format, behavioral, case management, and methodological retention strategies identified by a Cochrane review and associated qualitative study. Three simultaneous group discussions followed focused on (1) how convinced the workshop participants were by the evidence for retention strategies, (2) barriers to the use of effective retention strategies, (3) types of RCT follow-up that retention strategies could be used for, and (4) strategies for future research. Summaries of each group discussion were fed back to the workshop. Coded content for both workshops was compared for agreement and disagreement. Agreed consensus on best practice guidance for retention was identified. RESULTS: Workshop participants agreed best practice guidance for the use of small financial incentives to improve response to postal questionnaires in RCTs. Use of second-class post was thought to be adequate for postal communication with RCT participants. The most relevant validated questionnaire was considered best practice for collecting RCT data. Barriers identified for the use of effective retention strategies were: the small improvements seen in questionnaire response for the addition of monetary incentives, and perceptions among trialists that some communication strategies are outdated. Furthermore, there was resistance to change existing retention practices thought to be effective. Face-to-face and electronic follow-up technologies were identified as retention strategies for further research. CONCLUSIONS: We developed best practice guidance for the use of retention strategies in RCTs and identified potential barriers to the use of effective strategies. The extent of agreement on best practice is limited by the variability in the currently available evidence. This guidance will need updating as new retention strategies are developed and evaluated.

Peri-operative chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab in operable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma (UK Medical Research Council ST03): primary analysis results of a multicentre, open-label, randomised phase 2-3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2-3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1-21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203. FINDINGS: Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5-54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2-52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91-1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53). INTERPRETATION: The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited.

Mismatch Repair Deficiency, Microsatellite Instability, and Survival: An Exploratory Analysis of the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency (MMRD) and microsatellite instability (MSI) are prognostic for survival in many cancers and for resistance to fluoropyrimidines in early colon cancer. However, the effect of MMRD and MSI in curatively resected gastric cancer treated with perioperative chemotherapy is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To examine the association among MMRD, MSI, and survival in patients with resectable gastroesophageal cancer randomized to surgery alone or perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin, and fluorouracil chemotherapy in the Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This secondary post hoc analysis of the MAGIC trial included participants who were treated with surgery alone or perioperative chemotherapy plus surgery for operable gastroesophageal cancer from July 1, 1994, through April 30, 2002. Tumor sections were assessed for expression of the MMR proteins mutL homologue 1, mutS homologue 2, mutS homologue 6, and PMS1 homologue 2. The association among MSI, MMRD, and survival was assessed. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Interaction between MMRD and MSI status and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Of the 503 study participants, MSI results were available for 303 patients (283 with microsatellite stability or low MSI [median age, 62 years; 219 males (77.4%)] and 20 with high MSI [median age, 66 years; 14 males (70.0%)]). A total of 254 patients had MSI and MMR results available. Patients treated with surgery alone who had high MSI or MMRD had a median OS that was not reached (95% CI, 11.5 months to not reached) compared with a median OS among those who had neither high MSI nor MMRD of 20.5 months (95% CI, 16.7-27.8 months; hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.15-1.15; P = .09). In contrast, patients treated with chemotherapy plus surgery who had either high MSI or MMRD had a median OS of 9.6 months (95% CI, 0.1-22.5 months) compared with a median OS among those who were neither high MSI nor MMRD of 19.5 months (95% CI, 15.4-35.2 months; hazard ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.08-4.42; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In the MAGIC trial, MMRD and high MSI were associated with a positive prognostic effect in patients treated with surgery alone and a differentially negative prognostic effect in patients treated with chemotherapy. If independently validated, MSI or MMRD determined by preoperative biopsies could be used to select patients for perioperative chemotherapy.

Biopsy proportion of tumour predicts pathological tumour response and benefit from chemotherapy in resectable oesophageal carcinoma: results from the UK MRC OE02 trial.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for UK patients with locally advanced resectable oesophageal carcinoma (OeC). However, not all patients benefit from multimodal treatment and there is a clinical need for biomarkers which can identify chemotherapy responders. This study investigated whether the proportion of tumour cells per tumour area (PoT) measured in the pre-treatment biopsy predicts chemotherapy benefit for OeC patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PoT was quantified using digitized haematoxylin/eosin stained pre-treatment biopsy slides from 281 OeC patients from the UK MRC OE02 trial (141 treated by surgery alone (S); 140 treated by 5-fluorouracil/cisplatin followed by surgery (CS)). The relationship between PoT and clinicopathological data including tumour regression grade (TRG), overall survival and treatment interaction was investigated. RESULTS: PoT was associated with chemotherapy benefit in a non-linear fashion (test for interaction, P=0.006). Only patients with a biopsy PoT between 40% and 70% received a significant survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (N=129; HR (95%CI):1.94 (1.39-2.71), unlike those with lower or higher PoT (PoT<40%, N=39, HR:1.25 (0.66-2.35); PoT>70% (N=28, HR:0.65 (0.36-1.18)). High pre-treatment PoT was related to lack of primary tumour regression (TRG 4 or 5), P=0.0402. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to identify in a representative subgroup of OeC patients from a large randomized phase III trial that the proportion of tumour in the pre-chemotherapy biopsy predicts benefit from chemotherapy and may be a clinically useful biomarker for patient treatment stratification.Proportion of tumour is a novel biomarker which can be measured in the pre-treatment diagnostic biopsy and which may enable the identification of chemotherapy responders and non-responders among patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Proportion of tumour could easily become part of the routine reporting of oesophageal cancer biopsies and may aid in managing patients with borderline resectable cancer.

Reduced genomic tumor heterogeneity after neoadjuvant chemotherapy is related to favorable outcome in patients with esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy followed by surgery is the standard of care for patients with locally advanced resectable esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). There is increasing evidence that drug resistance might be related to genomic heterogeneity. We investigated whether genomic tumor heterogeneity is different after cytotoxic chemotherapy and is associated with EAC patient survival. We used arrayCGH and a quantitative assessment of the whole genome DNA copy number aberration patterns ('DNA copy number entropy') to establish the level of genomic tumor heterogeneity in 80 EAC treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS group) or surgery alone (S group). The association between DNA copy number entropy, clinicopathological variables and survival was investigated.DNA copy number entropy was reduced after chemotherapy, even if there was no morphological evidence of response to therapy (p<0.001). Low DNA copy number entropy was associated with improved survival in the CS group (p=0.011) but not in the S group (p=0.396).Our results suggest that cytotoxic chemotherapy reduces DNA copy number entropy, which might be a more sensitive tumor response marker than changes in the morphological tumor phenotype. The use of DNA copy number entropy in clinical practice will require validation of our results in a prospective study.

Defining a New Prognostic Index for Stage I Nonseminomatous Germ Cell Tumors Using CXCL12 Expression and Proportion of Embryonal Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Up to 50% of patients diagnosed with stage I nonseminomatous germ cell tumors (NSGCTs) harbor occult metastases. Patients are managed by surveillance with chemotherapy at relapse or adjuvant treatment up front. Late toxicities from chemotherapy are increasingly recognized. Based on a potential biologic role in germ cells/tumors and pilot data, our aim was to evaluate tumor expression of the chemokine CXCL12 alongside previously proposed markers as clinically useful biomarkers of relapse. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Immunohistochemistry for tumor expression of CXCL12 was assessed as a biomarker of relapse alongside vascular invasion, histology (percentage embryonal carcinoma), and MIB1 staining for proliferation in formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded orchidectomy samples from patients enrolled in the Medical Research Council's TE08/22 prospective trials of surveillance in stage I NSGCTs. RESULTS: TE08/TE22 trial patients had a 76.4% 2-year relapse-free rate, and both CXCL12 expression and percentage embryonal carcinoma provided prognostic value independently of vascular invasion (stratified log rank test P = 0.006 for both). There was no additional prognostic value for MIB1 staining. A model using CXCL12, percentage embryonal carcinoma, and VI defines three prognostic groups that were independently validated. CONCLUSIONS: CXCL12 and percentage embryonal carcinoma both stratify patients' relapse risk over and above vascular invasion alone. This is anticipated to improve the stratification of patients and identify high-risk cases to be considered for adjuvant therapy.

Pediatric and Adolescent Extracranial Germ Cell Tumors: The Road to Collaboration.

During the past 35 years, survival rates for children with extracranial malignant germ cell tumors (GCTs) have increased significantly. Success has been achieved primarily through the application of platinum-based chemotherapy regimens; however, clinical challenges in GCTs remain. Excellent outcomes are not distributed uniformly across the heterogeneous distribution of age, histologic features, and primary tumor site. Despite good outcomes overall, the likelihood of a cure for certain sites and histologic conditions is less than 50%. In addition, there are considerable long-term treatment-related effects for survivors. Even modest cisplatin dosing can cause significant long-term morbidities. A particular challenge in designing new therapies for GCT is that a variety of specialists use different risk stratifications, staging systems, and treatment approaches for three distinct age groups (childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood). Traditionally, pediatric cancer patients younger than 15 years have been treated by pediatric oncologists in collaboration with their surgical specialty colleagues. Adolescents and young adults with GCTs often are treated by medical oncologists, urologists, or gynecologic oncologists. The therapeutic dilemma for all is how to best define disease risk so that therapy and toxicity can be appropriately reduced for some patients and intensified for others. Further clinical and biologic insights can only be achieved through collaborations that do not set limitations by age, sex, and primary tumor site. Therefore, international collaborations, spanning different cooperative groups and disciplines, have been developed to address these challenges.

Technical reproducibility of single-nucleotide and size-based DNA biomarker assessment using DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissues.

DNA extracted from formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissues has been used in the past to analyze genetic polymorphisms. We evaluated the technical reproducibility of different types of assays for gene polymorphisms using DNA extracted from FFPE material. By using the MassARRAY iPLEX system, we investigated polymorphisms in DPYD (rs1801159 and rs3918290), UMPS (rs1801019), ERCC1 (rs11615), ERCC1 (rs3212986), and ERCC2 (rs13181) in 56 FFPE DNA samples. By using PCR, followed by size-based gel electrophoresis, we also examined TYMS 5' untranslated region 2R/3R repeats and GSTT1 deletions in 50 FFPE DNA samples and 34 DNAs extracted from fresh-frozen tissues and cell lines. Each polymorphism was analyzed by two independent runs. We found that iPLEX biomarker assays measuring single-nucleotide polymorphisms provided consistent concordant results. However, by using FFPE DNA, size-based PCR biomarkers (GSTT1 and TYMS 5' untranslated region) were discrepant in 32.7% (16/49, with exact 95% CI, 19.9%-47.5%; exact binomial confidence limit test) and 4.2% (2/48, with exact 95% CI, 0.5%-14.3%) of cases, respectively, whereas no discrepancies were observed using intact genomic DNA. Our findings suggest that DNA from FFPE material can be used to reliably test single-nucleotide polymorphisms. However, results based on size-based PCR biomarkers, and particularly GSTT1 deletions, using FFPE DNA need to be interpreted with caution. Independent repeated assays should be performed on all cases to assess potential discrepancies.