Personalizing neoadjuvant chemotherapy for locally advanced colon cancer: protocols for the international phase III FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 randomized controlled trials.

AIM: FOxTROT1 established a new standard of care for managing locally advanced colon cancer (CC) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Six weeks of neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (OxFp) chemotherapy was associated with greater 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) when compared with proceeding straight to surgery (STS). There is now a need to refine the use of NAC and identify those most likely to benefit. FOxTROT2 will aim to investigate NAC in older adults and those with frailty. FOxTROT3 will aim to assess whether intensified triplet NAC provides additional benefits over OxFp. METHOD: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 are international, open-label, phase III randomized controlled trials. Eligible patients will be identified by the multidisciplinary team. Patient age, frailty and comorbidities will be considered to guide trial entry. Participants will be randomized 2:1 to the intervention or control arm: 6 weeks of dose-adapted neoadjuvant OxFp versus STS in FOxTROT2 and 6 weeks of neoadjuvant modified oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and irinotecan versus OxFp in FOxTROT3. The primary endpoint in FOxTROT2 is 3-year DFS. In FOxTROT3, tumour regression grade and 3-year DFS are co-primary endpoints. DISCUSSION: FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 will establish the FOxTROT platform, a key part of our long-term strategy to develop neoadjuvant treatments for CC. FOxTROT2 will investigate NAC in a population under-represented in FOxTROT1 and wider research. FOxTROT3 will assess whether it is possible to induce greater early tumour responses and whether this translates to superior long-term outcomes. Looking ahead, the FOxTROT platform will facilitate further trial comparisons and extensive translational research to optimize the use of NAC in CC.

Thrombosis in patients with myeloma treated in the Myeloma IX and Myeloma XI phase 3 randomized controlled trials.

Newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (NDMM) patients treated with immunomodulatory drugs are at high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), but data are lacking from large prospective cohorts. We present thrombosis outcome data from Myeloma IX (n = 1936) and Myeloma XI (n = 4358) phase 3 randomized controlled trials for NDMM that treated transplant-eligible and transplant-ineligible patients before and after publication of thrombosis prevention guidelines. In Myeloma IX, transplant-eligible patients randomly assigned to cyclophosphamide, vincristine, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (CVAD) induction had higher risk of VTE compared with patients treated with cyclophosphamide, thalidomide, and dexamethasone (CTD) (22.5% [n = 121 of 538] vs 16.1% [n = 89 of 554]; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR],1.46; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.11-1.93). For transplant-ineligible patients, those randomly assigned to attenuated CTD (CTDa) induction had a higher risk of VTE compared with those treated with melphalan and prednisolone (MP) (16.0% [n = 68 of 425] vs 4.1% [n = 17 of 419]; aHR, 4.25; 95% CI, 2.50-7.20). In Myeloma XI, there was no difference in risk of VTE (12.2% [n = 124 of 1014] vs 13.2% [n = 133 of 1008]; aHR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.18) or arterial thrombosis (1.2% [n = 12 of 1014] vs 1.5% [n = 15 of 1008]; aHR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.37-1.70) between transplant-eligible pathways for patients treated with cyclophosphamide, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (CRD) or CTD. For transplant-ineligible patients, there was no difference in VTEs between attenuated CRD (CRDa) and CTDa (10.4% [n = 95 of 916] vs 10.7% [n = 97 of 910]; aHR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.73-1.29). However, arterial risk was higher with CRDa than with CTDa (3.1% [n = 28 of 916] vs 1.6% [n = 15 of 910]; aHR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.02-3.57). Thrombotic events occurred almost entirely within 6 months of treatment initiation. Thrombosis was not associated with inferior progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS), apart from inferior OS for patients with arterial events (aHR, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.12-2.08) in Myeloma XI. The Myeloma XI trial protocol incorporated International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) thrombosis prevention recommendations and compared with Myeloma IX, more patients received thromboprophylaxis (80.5% vs 22.3%) with lower rates of VTE for identical regimens (CTD, 13.2% vs 16.1%; CTDa, 10.7% vs 16.0%). However, thrombosis remained frequent in spite of IMWG-guided thromboprophylaxis, suggesting that new approaches are needed.

Early relapse after high-dose melphalan autologous stem cell transplant predicts inferior survival and is associated with high disease burden and genetically high-risk disease in multiple myeloma.

Predicting patient outcome in multiple myeloma remains challenging despite the availability of standard prognostic biomarkers. We investigated outcome for patients relapsing early from intensive therapy on NCRI Myeloma XI. Relapse within 12 months of autologous stem cell transplant was associated with markedly worse median progression-free survival 2 (PFS2) of 18 months and overall survival (OS) of 26 months, compared to median PFS2 of 85 months and OS of 91 months for later relapsing patients despite equal access to and use of subsequent therapies, highlighting the urgent need for improved outcome prediction and early intervention strategies for myeloma patients.

Choice of HbA1c threshold for identifying individuals at high risk of type 2 diabetes and implications for diabetes prevention programmes: a cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is common and increasing in prevalence. It is possible to prevent or delay T2D using lifestyle intervention programmes. Entry to these programmes is usually determined by a measure of glycaemia in the 'intermediate' range. This paper investigated the relationship between HbA1c and future diabetes risk and determined the impact of varying thresholds to identify those at high risk of developing T2D. METHODS: We studied 4227 participants without diabetes aged ≥ 40 years recruited to the Exeter 10,000 population cohort in South West England. HbA1c was measured at study recruitment with repeat HbA1c available as part of usual care. Absolute risk of developing diabetes within 5 years, defined by HbA1c ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%), according to baseline HbA1c, was assessed by a flexible parametric survival model. RESULTS: The overall absolute 5-year risk (95% CI) of developing T2D in the cohort was 4.2% (3.6, 4.8%). This rose to 7.1% (6.1, 8.2%) in the 56% (n = 2358/4224) of participants classified 'high-risk' with HbA1c ≥ 39 mmol/mol (5.7%; ADA criteria). Under IEC criteria, HbA1c ≥ 42 mmol/mol (6.0%), 22% (n = 929/4277) of the cohort was classified high-risk with 5-year risk 14.9% (12.6, 17.2%). Those with the highest HbA1c values (44-47 mmol/mol [6.2-6.4%]) had much higher 5-year risk, 26.4% (22.0, 30.5%) compared with 2.1% (1.5, 2.6%) for 39-41 mmol/mol (5.7-5.9%) and 7.0% (5.4, 8.6%) for 42-43 mmol/mol (6.0-6.1%). Changing the entry criterion to prevention programmes from 39 to 42 mmol/mol (5.7-6.0%) reduced the proportion classified high-risk by 61%, and increased the positive predictive value (PPV) from 5.8 to 12.4% with negligible impact on the negative predictive value (NPV), 99.6% to 99.1%. Increasing the threshold further, to 44 mmol/mol (6.2%), reduced those classified high-risk by 59%, and markedly increased the PPV from 12.4 to 23.2% and had little impact on the NPV (99.1% to 98.5%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of people are identified as high-risk using current thresholds. Increasing the risk threshold markedly reduces the number of people that would be classified as high-risk and entered into prevention programmes, although this must be balanced against cases missed. Raising the entry threshold would allow limited intervention opportunities to be focused on those most likely to develop T2D.

DNA methylation and inflammation marker profiles associated with a history of depression.

Depression is a common and disabling disorder, representing a major social and economic health issue. Moreover, depression is associated with the progression of diseases with an inflammatory etiology including many inflammatory-related disorders. At the molecular level, the mechanisms by which depression might promote the onset of these diseases and associated immune-dysfunction are not well understood. In this study we assessed genome-wide patterns of DNA methylation in whole blood-derived DNA obtained from individuals with a self-reported history of depression (n = 100) and individuals without a history of depression (n = 100) using the Illumina 450K microarray. Our analysis identified six significant (Sidák corrected P < 0.05) depression-associated differentially methylated regions (DMRs); the top-ranked DMR was located in exon 1 of the LTB4R2 gene (Sidák corrected P = 1.27 × 10-14). Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for depression were generated and known biological markers of inflammation, telomere length (TL) and IL-6, were measured in DNA and serum samples, respectively. Next, we employed a systems-level approach to identify networks of co-methylated loci associated with a history of depression, in addition to depression PRS, TL and IL-6 levels. Our analysis identified one depression-associated co-methylation module (P = 0.04). Interestingly, the depression-associated module was highly enriched for pathways related to immune function and was also associated with TL and IL-6 cytokine levels. In summary, our genome-wide DNA methylation analysis of individuals with and without a self-reported history of depression identified several candidate DMRs of potential relevance to the pathogenesis of depression and its associated immune-dysfunction phenotype.

NET-02: a randomised, non-comparative, phase II trial of nal-IRI/5-FU or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma.

Background: The prognosis for patients with poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-EP-NEC) is poor. A recognised first-line (1L) treatment for advanced disease is etoposide/platinum-based chemotherapy with no standard second-line (2L) treatment. Methods: Patients with histologically-confirmed PD-EP-NEC (Ki-67 > 20%; Grade 3) received IV liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) (70 mg/m2 free base)/5-FU (2400 mg/m2)/folinic acid, Q14 days (ARM A), or IV docetaxel (75 mg/m2), Q21 days (ARM B), as 2L therapy. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (80% power to demonstrate one-sided 95% lower confidence interval excluded 15% (target level of efficacy: 30%)). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), median PFS, overall survival (OS), toxicity and patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03837977). Findings: Of 58 patients (29 each arm); 57% male, 90% ECOG PS 0/1, 10% PS 2, 89.7% Ki-67 ≥ 55%, primary site: 70.7%-gastrointestinal, 18.9%-other, 10.3%-unknown, 91.4%/6.9%/1.7% were resistant/sensitive/intolerant to 1L platinum-based treatment, respectively. The primary end-point of 6-month PFS rate was met by ARM A: 29.6% (lower 95% Confidence-Limit (CL) 15.7), but not by ARM B: 13.8% (lower 95%CL:4.9). ORR, median PFS and OS were 11.1% (95%CI:2.4-29.2) and 10.3% (95%CI:2.2-27.4%); 3 months (95%CI:2-6) and 2 months (95%CI:2-2); and 6 months (95%CI:3-10) and 6 months (95%CI:3-9) in ARMS A and B, respectively. Adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurred in 51.7% and 55.2% (1 and 6 discontinuations due to toxicity in ARMS A and B), respectively. QoL was maintained in ARM A, but not ARM B. Interpretation: nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid, but not docetaxel, met the primary endpoint, with manageable toxicity and maintained QoL, with no difference in OS. ORR and median PFS were similar in both arms. This study provides prospective efficacy, toxicity and QoL data in the 2L setting in a disease group of unmet need, and represents some of the strongest evidence available to recommend systemic treatment to these patients. Funding: Servier.

Construct validation of the Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST).

BACKGROUND: The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) was developed to examine the level of partner (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) engagement in research studies. The REST is aligned with eight engagement principles based on the literature and consensus reached through a five round Delphi process. Each of the engagement principles has three-five corresponding items that are assessed on two Likert type scales quantity (how often: never, rarely, sometimes, often, always, not applicable) and quality (how well: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, not applicable). We conducted a comprehensive validation of the REST. Despite the importance of partner engagement in research, currently no gold standard measure exists. METHODS: Multiple strategies were employed to validate the REST. Here, we examine the internal consistency of items for each of the eight engagement principles. In addition, we examine the convergent validity of the comprehensive (32-item) REST with other measures (e.g., medical mistrust, Community Engagement in Research Index, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool, Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Assessment In community-based Research). We propose two scoring approaches for the REST; one aligned with the engagement principles and the other aligned with levels of community engagement: (1) outreach and education, (2) consultation, (3) cooperation, (4) collaboration, and (5) partnership. RESULTS: The REST has strong internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha > 0.75) for each of the eight engagement principals measured on both scales (quality and quantity). The REST had negligible (e.g., medical mistrust, community engagement in research index), low (e.g., Partnership Assessment In community-based Research, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- benefits scale), and moderate (e.g., Wilder collaboration inventory, Partnership Self-Assessment Tool- synergy scale) statistically significant correlations with other measures based on the Spearman rank correlation coefficient. These results suggest the REST is measuring something similar and correlated to the existing measures, but it captures a different construct (perceived research engagement). CONCLUSIONS: The REST is a valid and reliable tool to assess research engagement of community health stakeholders in the research process. Valid tools to assess research engagement are necessary to examine the impact of engagement on the scientific process and scientific discovery and move the field of stakeholder engagement from best practices and lessons learned to evidence-based approaches based on empirical data.

Researchers often conduct studies with partners (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) who also have an interest in the research topic. Depending on the research study the level of partner engagement in the research process may be high or low. Partners may be involved from the beginning including determining what topic to study and what questions the study should examine. They may suggest who should be included in the study, the geographic area of focus, and the outcome measures to be examined. In addition, they may help recruit study participants, interpret study results, and plan for how to share the results with those that need to know. No standard way exists to find out how involved a partner has been in a study from the partner's perspective. Here we develop and validate survey questions to measure the level of partner engagement in research studies. We looked at existing survey questions used to measure similar topics to make sure that a person who takes the survey gets consistent scores. We tested the survey with community health stakeholders (e.g., patients, caregivers, advocates, clinicians, community members) who are research partners for studies at universities across the United States. Over 2 years, the partners took different versions of the survey online four times. We used the data we collected from each survey to revise the questions and make sure that it measures partner involvement accurately and reliably. The Research Engagement Survey Tool (REST) has 32 questions to examine eight engagement principles on two scales: quantity (how much) and quality (how well). The REST is a valid and reliable tool to examine partner engagement in research.

NET-02 trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised, parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) and 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extrapulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC).

INTRODUCTION: Poorly differentiated (PD), extrapulmonary (EP), neuroendocrine carcinomas (NECs) are rare but aggressive neuroendocrine neoplasms. First-line treatment for advanced disease is an etoposide and platinum-based chemotherapy combination. There is no established second-line treatment for patients with PD-EP-NEC, and this is an area of unmet need. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: NET-02 is a UK, multicentre, randomised (1:1), parallel group, open-label, phase II, single-stage selection trial of liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI)/5-fluorouracil (5-FU)/folinic acid or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive PD-EP-NEC. One hundred and two eligible participants will be randomised to receive either nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid or docetaxel. The primary objective is to determine the 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate. The secondary objectives of this study are to determine PFS, overall survival, objective response rate, toxicity, quality of life and whether neuron-specific enolase is predictive of treatment response. If either treatment is found to have a 6-month PFS rate of at least 25%, that treatment will be considered for a phase III trial. If both treatments meet this target, prespecified selection criteria will be applied to establish which treatment to take forward. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has ethical approval from the Greater Manchester Central Research Ethics Committee (reference no. 18/NW/0031) and clinical trial authorisation from the Medicine and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and uploaded to the European Union Clinical Trials Register. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: ISRCTN10996604, NCT03837977, EudraCT Number: 2017-002453-11.