The Association between Blood Test Trends and Undiagnosed Cancer: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal.

Clinical guidelines include monitoring blood test abnormalities to identify patients at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. Noting blood test changes over time may improve cancer risk stratification by considering a patient's individual baseline and important changes within the normal range. We aimed to review the published literature to understand the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched until 15 May 2023 for studies assessing the association between blood test trends and undiagnosed cancer. We used descriptive summaries and narratively synthesised studies. We included 29 articles. Common blood tests were haemoglobin (24%, n = 7), C-reactive protein (17%, n = 5), and fasting blood glucose (17%, n = 5), and common cancers were pancreatic (29%, n = 8) and colorectal (17%, n = 5). Of the 30 blood tests studied, an increasing trend in eight (27%) was associated with eight cancer types, and a decreasing trend in 17 (57%) with 10 cancer types. No association was reported between trends in 11 (37%) tests and breast, bile duct, glioma, haematological combined, liver, prostate, or thyroid cancers. Our review highlights trends in blood tests that could facilitate the identification of individuals at increased risk of undiagnosed cancer. For most possible combinations of tests and cancers, there was limited or no evidence.

Multi-cancer early detection test in symptomatic patients referred for cancer investigation in England and Wales (SYMPLIFY): a large-scale, observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of circulating tumour DNA could stratify cancer risk in symptomatic patients. We aimed to evaluate the performance of a methylation-based multicancer early detection (MCED) diagnostic test in symptomatic patients referred from primary care. METHODS: We did a multicentre, prospective, observational study at National Health Service (NHS) hospital sites in England and Wales. Participants aged 18 or older referred with non-specific symptoms or symptoms potentially due to gynaecological, lung, or upper or lower gastrointestinal cancers were included and gave a blood sample when they attended for urgent investigation. Participants were excluded if they had a history of or had received treatment for an invasive or haematological malignancy diagnosed within the preceding 3 years, were taking cytotoxic or demethylating agents that might interfere with the test, or had participated in another study of a GRAIL MCED test. Patients were followed until diagnostic resolution or up to 9 months. Cell-free DNA was isolated and the MCED test performed blinded to the clinical outcome. MCED predictions were compared with the diagnosis obtained by standard care to establish the primary outcomes of overall positive and negative predictive value, sensitivity, and specificity. Outcomes were assessed in participants with a valid MCED test result and diagnostic resolution. SYMPLIFY is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN10226380) and has completed follow-up at all sites. FINDINGS: 6238 participants were recruited between July 7 and Nov 30, 2021, across 44 hospital sites. 387 were excluded due to staff being unable to draw blood, sample errors, participant withdrawal, or identification of ineligibility after enrolment. Of 5851 clinically evaluable participants, 376 had no MCED test result and 14 had no information as to final diagnosis, resulting in 5461 included in the final cohort for analysis with an evaluable MCED test result and diagnostic outcome (368 [6·7%] with a cancer diagnosis and 5093 [93·3%] without a cancer diagnosis). The median age of participants was 61·9 years (IQR 53·4-73·0), 3609 (66·1%) were female and 1852 (33·9%) were male. The MCED test detected a cancer signal in 323 cases, in whom 244 cancer was diagnosed, yielding a positive predictive value of 75·5% (95% CI 70·5-80·1), negative predictive value of 97·6% (97·1-98·0), sensitivity of 66·3% (61·2-71·1), and specificity of 98·4% (98·1-98·8). Sensitivity increased with increasing age and cancer stage, from 24·2% (95% CI 16·0-34·1) in stage I to 95·3% (88·5-98·7) in stage IV. For cases in which a cancer signal was detected among patients with cancer, the MCED test's prediction of the site of origin was accurate in 85·2% (95% CI 79·8-89·3) of cases. Sensitivity 80·4% (95% CI 66·1-90·6) and negative predictive value 99·1% (98·2-99·6) were highest for patients with symptoms mandating investigation for upper gastrointestinal cancer. INTERPRETATION: This first large-scale prospective evaluation of an MCED diagnostic test in a symptomatic population demonstrates the feasibility of using an MCED test to assist clinicians with decisions regarding urgency and route of referral from primary care. Our data provide the basis for a prospective, interventional study in patients presenting to primary care with non-specific signs and symptoms. FUNDING: GRAIL Bio UK.

BLOod Test Trend for cancEr Detection (BLOTTED): protocol for an observational and prediction model development study using English primary care electronic health record data.

BACKGROUND: Simple blood tests can play an important role in identifying patients for cancer investigation. The current evidence base is limited almost entirely to tests used in isolation. However, recent evidence suggests combining multiple types of blood tests and investigating trends in blood test results over time could be more useful to select patients for further cancer investigation. Such trends could increase cancer yield and reduce unnecessary referrals. We aim to explore whether trends in blood test results are more useful than symptoms or single blood test results in selecting primary care patients for cancer investigation. We aim to develop clinical prediction models that incorporate trends in blood tests to identify the risk of cancer. METHODS: Primary care electronic health record data from the English Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum primary care database will be accessed and linked to cancer registrations and secondary care datasets. Using a cohort study design, we will describe patterns in blood testing (aim 1) and explore associations between covariates and trends in blood tests with cancer using mixed-effects, Cox, and dynamic models (aim 2). To build the predictive models for the risk of cancer, we will use dynamic risk modelling (such as multivariate joint modelling) and machine learning, incorporating simultaneous trends in multiple blood tests, together with other covariates (aim 3). Model performance will be assessed using various performance measures, including c-statistic and calibration plots. DISCUSSION: These models will form decision rules to help general practitioners find patients who need a referral for further investigation of cancer. This could increase cancer yield, reduce unnecessary referrals, and give more patients the opportunity for treatment and improved outcomes.

Full Blood Count Trends for Colorectal Cancer Detection in Primary Care: Development and Validation of a Dynamic Prediction Model.

Colorectal cancer has low survival rates when late-stage, so earlier detection is important. The full blood count (FBC) is a common blood test performed in primary care. Relevant trends in repeated FBCs are related to colorectal cancer presence. We developed and internally validated dynamic prediction models utilising trends for early detection. We performed a cohort study. Sex-stratified multivariate joint models included age at baseline (most recent FBC) and simultaneous trends over historical haemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume (MCV), and platelet measurements up to baseline FBC for two-year risk of diagnosis. Performance measures included the c-statistic and calibration slope. We analysed 250,716 males and 246,695 females in the development cohort and 312,444 males and 462,900 females in the validation cohort, with 0.4% of males and 0.3% of females diagnosed two years after baseline FBC. Compared to average population trends, patient-level declines in haemoglobin and MCV and rise in platelets up to baseline FBC increased risk of diagnosis in two years. C-statistic: 0.751 (males) and 0.763 (females). Calibration slope: 1.06 (males) and 1.05 (females). Our models perform well, with low miscalibration. Utilising trends could bring forward diagnoses to earlier stages and improve survival rates. External validation is now required.

Trends in the full blood count blood test and colorectal cancer detection: a longitudinal, case-control study of UK primary care patient data.

Background: The full blood count (FBC) is a common blood test performed in general practice. It consists of many individual parameters that may change over time due to colorectal cancer. Such changes are likely missed in practice. We identified trends in these FBC parameters to facilitate early detection of colorectal cancer. Methods: We performed a retrospective, case-control, longitudinal analysis of UK primary care patient data. LOWESS smoothing and mixed effects models were derived to compare trends in each FBC parameter between patients diagnosed and not diagnosed over a prior 10-year period. Results: There were 399,405 males (2.3%, n = 9,255 diagnosed) and 540,544 females (1.5%, n = 8,153 diagnosed) in the study. There was no difference between cases and controls in FBC trends between 10 and four years before diagnosis. Within four years of diagnosis, trends in many FBC levels statistically significantly differed between cases and controls, including red blood cell count, haemoglobin, white blood cell count, and platelets (interaction between time and colorectal cancer presence: p <0.05). FBC trends were similar between Duke's Stage A and D colorectal tumours, but started around one year earlier in Stage D diagnoses. Conclusions: Trends in FBC parameters are different between patients with and without colorectal cancer for up to four years prior to diagnosis. Such trends could help earlier identification.

Colorectal cancer is a common type of cancer in the UK. It is the second most common cause of cancer-related death in the UK. Chances of surviving depend heavily on the tumour stage at diagnosis, which represents how much the tumour has developed. If diagnosed and treated at the earliest stage, where the tumour is confined to the colon, nine in 10 patients are expected to be alive five years later. If diagnosed at the latest stage, when the cancer has spread outside the colon, this drops to one in 10 surviving. The majority of UK patients with colorectal cancer are diagnosed with late-stage tumours, so are likely to die. Detecting and treating the cancer earlier can save lives. There is a blood test called the Full Blood Count, which is commonly ordered by doctors for many reasons. This test includes many blood levels, such as haemoglobin, which carries oxygen around the body. Growing tumours cause subtle changes in the blood levels over time, but it is unclear what these changes are and if they could help find cancer in the early stages. In our study, we looked at blood tests from almost one million patients in the UK, including around 17,000 with colorectal cancer. We checked how blood levels change over 10 years before diagnosis. We found that in the few years before patients are diagnosed, patients usually had blood levels that rapidly started increasing or declining (depending on the blood level) and this was often not seen in patients without colorectal cancer. Our study highlights that using trends over time in blood test results may be useful to identify colorectal cancer. Such trends could facilitate earlier detection because they were present for years before diagnosis. That would improve the chances of successful treatment and chances of survival.

The Full Blood Count Blood Test for Colorectal Cancer Detection: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Critical Appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: A full blood count (FBC) blood test includes 20 components. We systematically reviewed studies that assessed the association of the FBC and diagnosis of colorectal cancer to identify components as risk factors. We reviewed FBC-based prediction models for colorectal cancer risk. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science were searched until 3 September 2019. We meta-analysed the mean difference in FBC components between those with and without a diagnosis and critically appraised the development and validation of FBC-based prediction models. RESULTS: We included 53 eligible articles. Three of four meta-analysed components showed an association with diagnosis. In the remaining 16 with insufficient data for meta-analysis, three were associated with colorectal cancer. Thirteen FBC-based models were developed. Model performance was commonly assessed using the c-statistic (range 0.72-0.91) and calibration plots. Some models appeared to work well for early detection but good performance may be driven by early events. CONCLUSION: Red blood cells, haemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, red blood cell distribution width, white blood cell count, and platelets are associated with diagnosis and could be used for referral. Existing FBC-based prediction models might not perform as well as expected and need further critical testing.

Early warning scores for detecting deterioration in adult hospital patients: systematic review and critical appraisal of methodology.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an overview and critical appraisal of early warning scores for adult hospital patients. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Embase until June 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Studies describing the development or external validation of an early warning score for adult hospital inpatients. RESULTS: 13 171 references were screened and 95 articles were included in the review. 11 studies were development only, 23 were development and external validation, and 61 were external validation only. Most early warning scores were developed for use in the United States (n=13/34, 38%) and the United Kingdom (n=10/34, 29%). Death was the most frequent prediction outcome for development studies (n=10/23, 44%) and validation studies (n=66/84, 79%), with different time horizons (the most frequent was 24 hours). The most common predictors were respiratory rate (n=30/34, 88%), heart rate (n=28/34, 83%), oxygen saturation, temperature, and systolic blood pressure (all n=24/34, 71%). Age (n=13/34, 38%) and sex (n=3/34, 9%) were less frequently included. Key details of the analysis populations were often not reported in development studies (n=12/29, 41%) or validation studies (n=33/84, 39%). Small sample sizes and insufficient numbers of event patients were common in model development and external validation studies. Missing data were often discarded, with just one study using multiple imputation. Only nine of the early warning scores that were developed were presented in sufficient detail to allow individualised risk prediction. Internal validation was carried out in 19 studies, but recommended approaches such as bootstrapping or cross validation were rarely used (n=4/19, 22%). Model performance was frequently assessed using discrimination (development n=18/22, 82%; validation n=69/84, 82%), while calibration was seldom assessed (validation n=13/84, 15%). All included studies were rated at high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Early warning scores are widely used prediction models that are often mandated in daily clinical practice to identify early clinical deterioration in hospital patients. However, many early warning scores in clinical use were found to have methodological weaknesses. Early warning scores might not perform as well as expected and therefore they could have a detrimental effect on patient care. Future work should focus on following recommended approaches for developing and evaluating early warning scores, and investigating the impact and safety of using these scores in clinical practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017053324.

Dual Erb B Inhibition in Oesophago-gastric Cancer (DEBIOC): A phase I dose escalating safety study and randomised dose expansion of AZD8931 in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: AZD8931 has equipotent activity against epidermal growth factor receptor, erbB2, and erbB3. Primary objectives were to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) of AZD8931 + chemotherapy, and subsequently assess safety/preliminary clinical activity in patients with operable oesophagogastric cancer (OGC). METHODS: AZD8931 (20 mg, 40 mg or 60 mg bd) was given with Xelox (oxaliplatin + capecitabine) for eight 21-day cycles, continuously or with intermittent schedule (4 days on/3 off every week; 14 days on/7 off, per cycle) in a rolling-six design. Subsequently, patients with OGC were randomised 2:1 to AZD8931 + Xelox at RP2D or Xelox only for two cycles, followed by radical oesophagogastric surgery. Secondary outcomes were safety, complete resection (R0) rate, six-month progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: During escalation, four dose-limiting toxicities were observed among 24 patients: skin rash (1) and failure to deliver 100% of Xelox because of treatment-associated grade III-IV adverse events (AEs) (3: diarrhoea and vomiting; vomiting; fatigue). Serious adverse events (SAE) occurred in 15 of 24 (63%) patients. RP2D was 20-mg bd with the 4/3 schedule. In the expansion phase, 2 of 20 (10%) patients in the Xelox + AZD8931 group and 5/10 (50%) patients in the Xelox group had grade III-IV AEs. Six-month PFS was 85% (90% CI: 66%-94%) in Xelox + AZD8931 and 100% in Xelox alone. Seven deaths (35%) occurred with Xelox + AZD8931 and one (10%) with Xelox. R0 rate was 45% (9/20) with Xelox + AZD8931 and 90% (9/10) with Xelox-alone (P = 0.024). CONCLUSION: Xelox + AZD8931 (20 mg bd 4/3 days) has an acceptable safety profile administered as neoadjuvant therapy in operable patients with OGC. (Trial registration: EudraCT 2011-003169-13, ISRCTN-68093791).

Quality of life in the FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-global randomised trials of selective internal radiotherapy for metastatic colorectal cancer.

Selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) is a liver-directed treatment involving the injection of yttrium-90 microspheres into the blood supply of liver tumours. There are very few studies assessing health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients treated with SIRT. Patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (CRC) were randomised in the FOXFIRE (FFr; ISRCTN83867919), SIRFLOX (SF; NCT00724503) and FOXFIRE-Global (FFrG; NCT01721954) trials of first-line oxaliplatin-fluorouracil (FOLFOX) chemotherapy combined with SIRT versus FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was assessed using the three-level EQ-5D, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Colorectal Liver Metastases cancer module (EORTC QLQ-LMC21) at baseline, ≤3 months, 6 months, 12 months and annually thereafter from randomisation, and at disease progression. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. In total, 554 patients were randomised to SIRT + FOLFOX and 549 patients to FOLFOX alone. HRQOL was statistically significant lower in SIRT + FOLFOX patients ≤3 months after SIRT administration in all three instruments, particularly global health, physical and role functioning and symptoms of fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. By accepted thresholds, these differences were deemed not clinically important. Differences between SIRT + FOLFOX and FOLFOX alone over the 2-year follow up and at disease progression were also not clinically important. Although there is some decrease in HRQOL for up to 3 months following SIRT, the addition of SIRT to FOLFOX chemotherapy does not change HRQOL to a clinically important degree in metastatic CRC patients.

Components of the full blood count as risk factors for colorectal cancer detection: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is the fourth most common type of cancer and the second most common cause of cancer-related deaths in the UK. The full blood count (FBC) is a blood test that may play a role in early detection of the disease. Previous studies have aimed to identify how levels of individual components, such as haemoglobin, can be used to assist the diagnosis. We aim to systematically review studies to identify whether components of the FBC are risk factors for diagnosis of colorectal cancer, critically appraise the methods used to assess the association and assess performance of the components. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The MEDLINE (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), CINAHL (via EBSCOhost) and Web of Science databases will be searched to identify studies reporting the association between the levels of at least one FBC component and the risk of a future diagnosis of colorectal cancer in undiagnosed individuals. Clincialtrials.gov and the WHO registry will be searched to identify relevant ongoing research. Search terms will include relevant Medical Subject Headings and Emtree headings, and free-text terms relating to FBC, colorectal cancer and diagnosis. No date or language restrictions will be applied. Two reviewers will independently identify the studies for inclusion and perform data extraction. Time intervals between the blood tests and diagnosis will form the subgroups for analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There is no direct patient involvement and only published articles will be reviewed; no ethical approval is required. Results from this review will set a foundation for intended future work on developing a new risk score for early detection of colorectal cancer, derived using FBC data. This systematic review will also provide guidance on the analysis of time to diagnosis. The model will be freely available to UK primary care practices. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019134400.

Hepatic Resection Following Selective Internal Radiation Therapy for Colorectal Cancer Metastases in the FOXFIRE Clinical Trial: Clinical Outcomes and Distribution of Microspheres.

The FOXFIRE (5-Fluorouracil, OXaliplatin and Folinic acid ± Interventional Radio-Embolisation) clinical trial combined systemic chemotherapy (OxMdG: Oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folic acid) with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT or radio-embolisation) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in the first-line management for liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). We report clinical outcomes for patients having hepatic resection after this novel combination therapy and an exploratory analysis of histopathology. Multi-Disciplinary Teams deemed all patients inoperable before trial registration and reassessed them during protocol therapy. Proportions were compared using Chi-squared tests and survival using Cox models. FOXFIRE randomised 182 participants to chemotherapy alone and 182 to chemotherapy with SIRT. There was no statistically significant difference in the resection rate between groups: Chemotherapy alone was 18%, (n = 33); SIRT combination was 21% (n = 38) (p = 0.508). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in the rate of liver surgery, nor in survival from time of resection (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.55; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.83-2.89). In the subgroup studied for histopathology, microsphere density was highest at the tumour periphery. Patients treated with SIRT plus chemotherapy displayed lower values of viable tumour in comparison to those treated with chemotherapy alone (p < 0.05). This study promotes the feasibility of hepatic resection following SIRT. Resin microspheres appear to preferentially distribute at the tumour periphery and may enhance tumour regression.

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.

First-line selective internal radiotherapy plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with liver metastases from colorectal cancer (FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global): a combined analysis of three multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trials.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest selective internal radiotherapy (SIRT) in third-line or subsequent therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer has clinical benefit in patients with colorectal liver metastases with liver-dominant disease after chemotherapy. The FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global randomised studies evaluated the efficacy of combining first-line chemotherapy with SIRT using yttrium-90 resin microspheres in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer with liver metastases. The studies were designed for combined analysis of overall survival. METHODS: FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global were randomised, phase 3 trials done in hospitals and specialist liver centres in 14 countries worldwide (Australia, Belgium, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, South Korea, Singapore, Spain, Taiwan, the UK, and the USA). Chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (WHO performance status 0 or 1) with liver metastases not suitable for curative resection or ablation were randomly assigned (1:1) to either oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy (FOLFOX: leucovorin, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX plus single treatment SIRT concurrent with cycle 1 or 2 of chemotherapy. In FOXFIRE, FOLFOX chemotherapy was OxMdG (oxaliplatin modified de Gramont chemotherapy; 85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, L-leucovorin 175 mg or D,L-leucovorin 350 mg infusion over 2 h, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). In SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global, FOLFOX chemotherapy was modified FOLFOX6 (85 mg/m2 oxaliplatin infusion over 2 h, 200 mg leucovorin, and 400 mg/m2 bolus fluorouracil followed by a 2400 mg/m2 continuous fluorouracil infusion over 46 h). Randomisation was done by central minimisation with four factors: presence of extrahepatic metastases, tumour involvement of the liver, planned use of a biological agent, and investigational centre. Participants and investigators were not masked to treatment. The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed in the intention-to-treat population, using a two-stage meta-analysis of pooled individual patient data. All three trials have completed 2 years of follow-up. FOXFIRE is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83867919. SIRFLOX and FOXFIRE-Global are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00724503 (SIRFLOX) and NCT01721954 (FOXFIRE-Global). FINDINGS: Between Oct 11, 2006, and Dec 23, 2014, 549 patients were randomly assigned to FOLFOX alone and 554 patients were assigned FOLFOX plus SIRT. Median follow-up was 43·3 months (IQR 31·6-58·4). There were 411 (75%) deaths in 549 patients in the FOLFOX alone group and 433 (78%) deaths in 554 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group. There was no difference in overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·19; p=0·61). The median survival time in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group was 22·6 months (95% CI 21·0-24·5) compared with 23·3 months (21·8-24·7) in the FOLFOX alone group. In the safety population containing patients who received at least one dose of study treatment, as treated, the most common grade 3-4 adverse event was neutropenia (137 [24%] of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone vs 186 (37%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT). Serious adverse events of any grade occurred in 244 (43%) of 571 patients receiving FOLFOX alone and 274 (54%) of 507 patients receiving FOLFOX plus SIRT. 10 patients in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and 11 patients in the FOLFOX alone group died due to an adverse event; eight treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX plus SIRT group and three treatment-related deaths occurred in the FOLFOX alone group. INTERPRETATION: Addition of SIRT to first-line FOLFOX chemotherapy for patients with liver-only and liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer did not improve overall survival compared with that for FOLFOX alone. Therefore, early use of SIRT in combination with chemotherapy in unselected patients with metastatic colorectal cancer cannot be recommended. To further define the role of SIRT in metastatic colorectal cancer, careful patient selection and studies investigating the role of SIRT as consolidation therapy after chemotherapy are needed. FUNDING: Bobby Moore Fund of Cancer Research UK, Sirtex Medical.

Protocol for Combined Analysis of FOXFIRE, SIRFLOX, and FOXFIRE-Global Randomized Phase III Trials of Chemotherapy +/- Selective Internal Radiation Therapy as First-Line Treatment for Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: In colorectal cancer (CRC), unresectable liver metastases are associated with a poor prognosis. The FOXFIRE (an open-label randomized phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin, and folinic acid +/- interventional radioembolization as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-predominant metastatic colorectal cancer), SIRFLOX (randomized comparative study of FOLFOX6m plus SIR-Spheres microspheres versus FOLFOX6m alone as first-line treatment in patients with nonresectable liver metastases from primary colorectal carcinoma), and FOXFIRE-Global (assessment of overall survival of FOLFOX6m plus SIR-Spheres microspheres versus FOLFOX6m alone as first-line treatment in patients with nonresectable liver metastases from primary colorectal carcinoma in a randomized clinical study) clinical trials were designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combining first-line chemotherapy with selective internal radiation therapy (SIRT) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres, also called transarterial radioembolization. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis is to prospectively combine clinical data from 3 trials to allow adequate power to evaluate the impact of chemotherapy with SIRT on overall survival. METHODS: Eligible patients are adults with histologically confirmed CRC and unequivocal evidence of liver metastases which are not treatable by surgical resection or local ablation with curative intent at the time of study entry. Patients may also have limited extrahepatic metastases. Final analysis will take place when all participants have been followed up for a minimum of 2 years. RESULTS: Efficacy and safety estimates derived using individual participant data (IPD) from SIRFLOX, FOXFIRE, and FOXFIRE-Global will be pooled using 2-stage prospective meta-analysis. Secondary outcome measures include progression-free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, health-related quality of life, response rate, resection rate, and adverse event profile. The large study population will facilitate comparisons of low frequency adverse events and allow for more robust safety analyses. The potential treatment benefit in those patients who present with disease confined to the liver will be investigated using 1-stage IPD meta-analysis. Efficacy will be analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis will assess the impact of SIRT combined with chemotherapy on overall survival in the first-line treatment of metastatic CRC. If positive, the results will change the standard of care for this disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: FOXFIRE ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN83867919; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN83867919 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oN7axrvA). SIRFLOX ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00724503; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ct2/show/NCT00724503 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6oN7lEGbD). FOXFIRE-Global ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01721954; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01721954 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/ 6oN7vvQvG).