Scheduling nab-paclitaxel combined with gemcitabine as first-line treatment for metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Nab-paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (nabP+gemcitabine) offers modest survival gains for patients with metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). Sequential scheduling of nabP+gemcitabine in a PDAC mouse model improved efficacy; this hypothesis was tested in a clinical trial. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated metastatic PDAC were randomised to receive nabP+gemcitabine administered either concomitantly on the same day, or sequentially, with gemcitabine administered 24 h after nabP. The primary outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary outcome measures were objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), safety, quality of life (QoL) and predictive biomarkers. RESULTS: In total, 71 patients received sequential (SEQ) and 75 concomitant (CON) treatment. Six-month PFS was 46% with SEQ and 32% with CON scheduling. Median PFS (5.6 versus 4.0 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.67, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.47-0.95, p = 0.022) and ORR (52% versus 31%, p = 0.023) favoured the SEQ arm; median OS was 10.2 versus 8.2 months (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.33, p = 0.70). CTCAE Grade ≥3 neutropaenia incidence doubled with SEQ therapy but was not detrimental to QoL. Strongly positive tumour epithelial cytidine deaminase (CDA) expression favoured benefit from SEQ therapy (PFS HR 0.31, 95% CI 0.13-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: SEQ delivery of nabP+gemcitabine improved PFS and ORR, with manageable toxicity, but did not significantly improve OS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN71070888; ClinialTrials.gov (NCT03529175).

Paclitaxel with or without trametinib or pazopanib in advanced wild-type BRAF melanoma (PACMEL): a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: Advanced melanoma treatments often rely on immunotherapy or targeting mutations, with few treatment options for wild-type BRAF (BRAF-wt) melanoma. However, the mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway is activated in most melanoma, including BRAF-wt. We assessed whether inhibiting this pathway by adding kinase inhibitors trametinib or pazopanib to paclitaxel chemotherapy improved outcomes in patients with advanced BRAF-wt melanoma in a phase II, randomised and open-label trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomised (1 : 1 : 1) to paclitaxel alone or with trametinib or pazopanib. Paclitaxel was given for a maximum of six cycles, while 2 mg trametinib and 800 mg pazopanib were administered orally once daily until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Participants and investigators were unblinded. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and objective response rate (ORR). RESULTS: Participants were randomised to paclitaxel alone (n = 38), paclitaxel and trametinib (n = 36), or paclitaxel and pazopanib (n = 37). Adding trametinib significantly improved 6-month PFS [time ratio (TR), 1.47; 90% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-2.01, P = 0.04] and ORR (42% versus 13%; P = 0.01) but had no effect on OS (P = 0.25). Adding pazopanib did not benefit 6-month PFS; (TR 1.36; 90% CI 0.96-1.93; P = 0.14), ORR, or OS. Toxicity increased in both combination arms. CONCLUSION: In this phase II trial, adding trametinib to paclitaxel chemotherapy for BRAF-wt melanoma improved PFS and substantially increased ORR but did not impact OS.This study was registered with the EU Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2011-002545-35, and with the ISRCTN registry, number 43327231.

Survival of Escherichia coli in Manure-Amended Soils Is Affected by Spatiotemporal, Agricultural, and Weather Factors in the Mid-Atlantic United States.

Untreated biological soil amendments of animal origin (BSAAO), such as manure, are commonly used to fertilize soils for growing fruit and vegetable crops and can contain enteric bacterial foodborne pathogens. Little is known about the comparative longitudinal survival of pathogens in agricultural fields containing different types of BSAAO, and field data may be useful to determine intervals between manure application and harvest of produce intended for human consumption to minimize foodborne illness. This study generated 324 survival profiles from 12 different field trials at three different sites (UMES, PA, and BARC) in the Mid-Atlantic United States from 2011 to 2015 of inoculated nonpathogenic Escherichia coli (gEc) and attenuated O157 E. coli (attO157) in soils which were unamended (UN) or amended with untreated poultry litter (PL), horse manure (HM), or dairy manure solids (DMS) or liquids (DML). Site, season, inoculum level (low/high), amendment type, management (organic/conventional), and depth (surface/tilled) all significantly (P < 0.0001) influenced survival duration (dpi100mort). Spatiotemporal factors (site, year, and season) in which the field trial was conducted influenced survival durations of gEc and attO157 to a greater extent than weather effects (average daily temperature and rainfall). Initial soil moisture content was the individual factor that accounted for the greatest percentage of variability in survival duration. PL supported greater survival durations of gEc and attO157, followed by HM, UN, and DMS in amended soils. The majority of survival profiles for gEc and attO157 which survived for more than 90 days came from a specific year (i.e., 2013). The effect of management and depth on dpi100mort were dependent on the amendment type evaluated.IMPORTANCE Current language in the Food Safety Modernization Act Produce Safety Rule states no objection to a 90- or 120-day interval between application of untreated BSAAO and harvest of crops to minimize transfer of pathogens to produce intended for human consumption with the intent to limit potential cases of foodborne illness. This regional multiple season, multiple location field trial determined survival durations of Escherichia coli in soils amended with manure to determine whether this interval is appropriate. Spatiotemporal factors influence survival durations of E. coli more than amendment type, total amount of E. coli present, organic or conventional soil management, and depth of manure application. Overall, these data show poultry litter may support extended survival of E. coli compared to horse manure or dairy manure, but spatiotemporal factors like site and season may have more influence than manure type in supporting survival of E. coli beyond 90 days in amended soils in the Mid-Atlantic United States.

Circulating tumor DNA predicts survival in patients with resected high-risk stage II/III melanoma.

Background: Patients with high-risk stage II/III resected melanoma commonly develop distant metastases. At present, we cannot differentiate between patients who will recur or those who are cured by surgery. We investigated if circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) can predict relapse and survival in patients with resected melanoma. Patients and methods: We carried out droplet digital polymerase chain reaction to detect BRAF and NRAS mutations in plasma taken after surgery from 161 stage II/III high-risk melanoma patients enrolled in the AVAST-M adjuvant trial. Results: Mutant BRAF or NRAS ctDNA was detected (≥1 copy of mutant ctDNA) in 15/132 (11%) BRAF mutant patient samples and 4/29 (14%) NRAS mutant patient samples. Patients with detectable ctDNA had a decreased disease-free interval [DFI; hazard ratio (HR) 3.12; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.79-5.47; P < 0.0001] and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI; HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.80-5.79; P < 0.0001) versus those with undetectable ctDNA. Detectable ctDNA remained a significant predictor after adjustment for performance status and disease stage (DFI: HR 3.26, 95% CI 1.83-5.83, P < 0.0001; DMFI: HR 3.45, 95% CI 1.88-6.34, P < 0.0001). Five-year overall survival rate for patients with detectable ctDNA was 33% (95% CI 14%-55%) versus 65% (95% CI 56%-72%) for those with undetectable ctDNA. Overall survival was significantly worse for patients with detectable ctDNA (HR 2.63; 95% CI 1.40-4.96); P = 0.003) and remained significant after adjustment for performance status (HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.32-4.74, P = 0.005). Conclusion: ctDNA predicts for relapse and survival in high-risk resected melanoma and could aid selection of patients for adjuvant therapy. Clinical trial number: ISRCTN 81261306.

Adjuvant bevacizumab for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: survival analysis of the AVAST-M trial.

Background: Bevacizumab is a recombinant humanised monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor shown to improve survival in advanced solid cancers. We evaluated the role of adjuvant bevacizumab in melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence. Patients and methods: Patients with resected AJCC stage IIB, IIC and III cutaneous melanoma were randomised to receive either adjuvant bevacizumab (7.5 mg/kg i.v. 3 weekly for 1 year) or standard observation. The primary end point was detection of an 8% difference in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate; secondary end points included disease-free interval (DFI) and distant metastasis-free interval (DMFI). Tumour and blood were analysed for prognostic and predictive markers. Results: Patients (n=1343) recruited between 2007 and 2012 were predominantly stage III (73%), with median age 56 years (range 18-88 years). With 6.4-year median follow-up, 515 (38%) patients had died [254 (38%) bevacizumab; 261 (39%) observation]; 707 (53%) patients had disease recurrence [336 (50%) bevacizumab, 371 (55%) observation]. OS at 5 years was 64% for both groups [hazard ratio (HR) 0.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-1.16, P = 0.78). At 5 years, 51% were disease free on bevacizumab versus 45% on observation (HR 0.85; 95% CI 0.74-0.99, P = 0.03), 58% were distant metastasis free on bevacizumab versus 54% on observation (HR 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.07, P = 0.25). Forty four percent of 682 melanomas assessed had a BRAFV600 mutation. In the observation arm, BRAF mutant patients had a trend towards poorer OS compared with BRAF wild-type patients (P = 0.06). BRAF mutation positivity trended towards better OS with bevacizumab (P = 0.21). Conclusions: Adjuvant bevacizumab after resection of high-risk melanoma improves DFI, but not OS. BRAF mutation status may predict for poorer OS untreated and potential benefit from bevacizumab. Clinical Trial Information: ISRCTN 81261306; EudraCT Number: 2006-005505-64.

Withdrawal of anticancer therapy in advanced disease: a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines set out when to start anticancer treatments, but not when to stop as the end of life approaches. Conventional cytotoxic agents are administered intravenously and have major life-threatening toxicities. Newer drugs include molecular targeted agents (MTAs), in particular, small molecule kinase-inhibitors (KIs), which are administered orally. These have fewer life-threatening toxicities, and are increasingly used to palliate advanced cancer, generally offering additional months of survival benefit. MTAs are substantially more expensive, between £2-8 K per month, and perceived as easier to start than stop. METHODS: A systematic review of decision-making concerning the withdrawal of anticancer drugs towards the end of life within clinical practice, with a particular focus on MTAs. Nine electronic databases searched. PRISMA guidelines followed. RESULTS: Forty-two studies included. How are decisions made? Decision-making was shared and ongoing, including stopping, starting and trying different treatments. Oncologists often experienced 'professional role dissonance' between their self-perception as 'treaters', and talking about end of life care. Why are decisions made? Clinical factors: disease progression, worsening functional status, treatment side-effects. Non-clinical factors: physicians' personal experience, values, emotions. Some patients continued treatment to maintain 'hope', often reflecting limited understanding of palliative goals. When are decisions made? Limited evidence reveals patients' decisions based upon quality of life benefits. Clinicians found timing withdrawal particularly challenging. Who makes the decisions? Decisions were based within physician-patient interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Oncologists report that decisions around stopping chemotherapy treatment are challenging, with limited evidence-based guidance outside of clinical trial protocols. The increasing availability of oral MTAs is transforming the management of incurable cancer; blurring boundaries between active treatment and palliative care. No studies specifically addressing decision-making around stopping MTAs in clinical practice were identified. There is a need to develop an evidence base to support physicians and patients with decision-making around the withdrawal of these high cost treatments.

Unmet clinical needs in the management of advanced melanoma: findings from a survey of oncologists.

Advanced melanoma is a life-threatening cancer with limited life expectancy. The recent introduction of new targeted systemic therapies has provided clinicians with the means to potentially extend survival for the first time. However, the chance of cure remains very low and treatment-induced toxicity is well described. This qualitative study was undertaken to evaluate clinicians' assessment regarding the key concerns in managing advanced melanoma following the introduction of these new treatments. Three hundred and forty-three oncologists were surveyed online between August and November 2012 (in 11 countries) and March and April 2013 (in an additional country). Analysis of free-text responses identified 23 clinical issues of concern across all countries. Of these, the most common clinical concerns were drug toxicity and tolerability, followed by limited treatment effectiveness and limited treatment options. These results suggest that despite the promise of the two new agents in the field, clinicians are still concerned about the limitations of current treatment options, recognising that there remains a significant unmet need in the treatment of advanced melanoma.

Treatment patterns in advanced melanoma: findings from a survey of European oncologists.

With the emergence of new therapies, established patterns of treating advanced melanoma are changing. The aim of this study was to understand how advanced melanoma is treated in clinical practice in Europe following the introduction of ipilimumab and vemurafenib. An online survey was conducted between August and November 2012 with 150 oncologists and dermatologists, from France, Germany, Italy, Spain and the U.K.; respondents reported treating the majority of patients with one or two lines of therapy. For BRAF mutant melanoma, the most frequently used first-line treatments were vemurafenib and dacarbazine. For BRAF wild-type melanoma, the most frequently used first-line treatment was dacarbazine. There was no single preferred agent for the second-line treatment of BRAF mutant or BRAF wild-type disease. Most sequencing from first- to second-line was from conventional dacarbazine to newer agents such as ipilimumab and vemurafenib. The treatment of advanced melanoma is rapidly evolving due to the introduction of new agents. This study presents an early insight into access to the new agents, ipilimumab and vemurafenib, and clinical practice in several European countries.

Treatment costs associated with interventional cancer clinical trials conducted at a single UK institution over 2 years (2009-2010).

BACKGROUND: The conduct of clinical trials should be an integral part of routine patient care. Treating patients in trials incurs additional costs over and above standard of care (SOC), but the extent of the cost burden is not known. We undertook a retrospective cost attribution analysis to quantitate the treatment costs associated with cancer clinical trial protocols conducted over a 2 year period. METHODS: All patients entered into oncology (non-haematology) clinical trials involving investigational medicinal products in 2009 and 2010 in a single UK institution were identified. The trial protocols on which they were treated were analysed to identify the treatment costs for the experimental arm(s) of the trial and the equivalent SOC had the patient not been entered in the trial. The treatment cost difference was calculated by subtracting the experimental treatment cost from SOC cost. For randomised trials, an average treatment cost was estimated by taking into account the number of arms and randomisation ratio. An estimate of the annual treatment costs was calculated. RESULTS: A total of 357 adult oncology patients were treated on 53 different trial protocols: 40 phase III, 2 randomised II/III and 11 phase II design. A total of 27 trials were academic, non-commercial sponsored trials and 26 were commercial sponsored trials. When compared with SOC, the average treatment cost per patient was an excess of £431 for a non-commercial trial (range £6393 excess to £6005 saving) and a saving of £9294 for a commercial trial (range £0 to £71,480). There was an overall treatment cost saving of £388,719 in 2009 and £496,556 in 2010, largely attributable to pharmaceutical company provision of free drug supplies. CONCLUSION: On an average, non-commercial trial protocols were associated with a small per patient excess treatment cost, whereas commercial trials were associated with a substantially higher cost saving. Taking into account the total number of patients recruited annually, treatment of patients on clinical trial protocols was associated with considerable cost savings across both the non-commercial and commercial portfolio.

Is community treatment best? a randomised trial comparing delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital, home and GP surgery.

BACKGROUND: Care closer to home is being explored as a means of improving patient experience as well as efficiency in terms of cost savings. Evidence that community cancer services improve care quality and/or generate cost savings is currently limited. A randomised study was undertaken to compare delivery of cancer treatment in the hospital with two different community settings. METHODS: Ninety-seven patients being offered outpatient-based cancer treatment were randomised to treatment delivered in a hospital day unit, at the patient's home or in local general practice (GP) surgeries. The primary outcome was patient-perceived benefits, using the emotional function domain of the EORTC quality of life (QOL) QLQC30 questionnaire evaluated after 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included additional QOL measures, patient satisfaction, safety and health economics. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant QOL difference between treatment in the combined community locations relative to hospital (difference of -7.2, 95% confidence interval: -19·5 to +5·2, P=0.25). There was a significant difference between the two community locations in favour of home (+15·2, 1·3 to 29·1, P=0.033). Hospital anxiety and depression scale scores were consistent with the primary outcome measure. There was no evidence that community treatment compromised patient safety and no significant difference between treatment arms in terms of overall costs or Quality Adjusted Life Year. Seventy-eight percent of patients expressed satisfaction with their treatment whatever their location, whereas 57% of patients preferred future treatment to continue at the hospital, 81% at GP surgeries and 90% at home. Although initial pre-trial interviews revealed concerns among health-care professionals and some patients regarding community treatment, opinions were largely more favourable in post-trial interviews. INTERPRETATION: Patient QOL favours delivering cancer treatment in the home rather than GP surgeries. Nevertheless, both community settings were acceptable to and preferred by patients compared with hospital, were safe, with no detrimental impact on overall health-care costs.

Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumours (NETs).

These guidelines update previous guidance published in 2005. They have been revised by a group who are members of the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society with endorsement from the clinical committees of the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Society for Endocrinology, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (and its Surgical Specialty Associations), the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and others. The authorship represents leaders of the various groups in the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society, but a large amount of work has been carried out by other specialists, many of whom attended a guidelines conference in May 2009. We have attempted to represent this work in the acknowledgements section. Over the past few years, there have been advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours, which have included clearer characterisation, more specific and therapeutically relevant diagnosis, and improved treatments. However, there remain few randomised trials in the field and the disease is uncommon, hence all evidence must be considered weak in comparison with other more common cancers.

A randomised study evaluating the use of pyridoxine to avoid capecitabine dose modifications.

BACKGROUND: Pyridoxine is frequently used to treat capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome (HFS), although the evidence of benefit is lacking. We performed a randomised placebo-controlled trial to determine whether pyridoxine could avoid the need for capecitabine dose modifications and improve outcomes. METHODS: A total of 106 patients planned for palliative single-agent capecitabine (53 in each arm, 65%/35% colorectal/breast cancer) were randomised to receive either concomitant pyridoxine (50 mg po) or matching placebo three times daily. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, pyridoxine use was associated with an increased rate of avoiding capecitabine dose modifications (37% vs 23%, relative risk 0.59, 95% CI 0.29, 1.20, P=0.15) and fewer grade 3/4 HFS-related adverse events (9% vs 17%, odds ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.15-1.6, P=0.26). Use of pyridoxine did not improve response rate or progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Pyridoxine may reduce the need for capecitabine dose modifications and the incidence of severe HFS, but does not impact on antitumour effect.

Ipilimumab-induced thrombocytopenia in a patient with metastatic melanoma.

A 57-year-old man with metastatic melanoma developed grade 4 thrombocytopenia during treatment with ipilimumab (anti-CTLA-4 antibody). Bone marrow examination confirmed increased megakaryocytes, which supported a diagnosis of drug-induced, immune-mediated thrombocytopenia and he received 1 mg/kg prednisolone and 1 g/kg intravenous immunoglobulin. There was a delayed response to treatment, with the first evidence of rise in platelet count seen after 9 days. This was followed by a complete and sustained resolution of thrombocytopenia. Hematological toxicity has rarely been associated with ipilimumab and to our knowledge this is the first report of isolated grade 4 thrombocytopenia. This case demonstrates the importance of monitoring full blood count in all patients receiving ipilimumab.

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies.

METHOD: The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study. RESULTS: In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m(-2) dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37%; median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0). CONCLUSION: Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.

SARS-CoV-2 Infection and Antibody Seroprevalence among UK Healthcare Professionals Working with Cancer Patients during the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

AIMS: The proportion of UK oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs) infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to determine the SARS-CoV-2 infection and seroprevalence rates among HCPs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient-facing oncology HCPs working at three large UK hospitals during the COVID-19 pandemic's first wave underwent polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and antibody testing [Luminex and point-of-care (POC) tests] on two occasions 28 days apart (June-July 2020). RESULTS: In total, 434 HCPs were recruited: nurses (58.3%), doctors (21.2%), radiographers (10.4%), administrators (10.1%); 26.3% reported prior symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2. All participants were PCR negative during the study, but 18.4% were Luminex seropositive on day 1, of whom 42.5% were POC seropositive. Nurses had the highest seropositive prevalence trend (21.3%, P = 0.2). Thirty-eight per cent of seropositive HCPs reported previous SARS-CoV-2 symptoms: 1.9 times higher odds than seronegative HCPs (P = 0.01). Of 400 participants retested on day 28, 13.3% were Luminex seropositive (92.5% previously, 7.5% newly). Thirty-two per cent of initially seropositive HCPs were seronegative on day 28. CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of PCR-negative patient-facing oncology HCPs, almost one in five were SARS-CoV-2 antibody positive at the start of the pandemic's first wave. Our findings that one in three seropositive HCPs retested 28 days later became seronegative support regular SARS-CoV-2 PCR and antibody testing until widespread immunity is achieved by effective vaccination.

Detection of breastmilk antibodies targeting SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid, spike and receptor-binding-domain antigens.

A 40-year-old female was found to have strongly neutralizing SARS-CoV-2 breastmilk IgA and IgG antibodies reactive against multiple SARS-CoV-2 antigens at 2.5 months after documented infection with SARS-CoV-2. At 6.5 months following the infection, she remained positive for breastmilk and serum SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing antibodies. Holder breast milk pasteurization did not diminish SARS-CoV-2 antibody titres but it reduced its neutralizing capacity, while serum heat inactivation had no negative effect on SARS-CoV-2 serum antibody levels and neutralizing capacity. Current data on SARS-CoV-2 and breastmilk are reviewed.

Current role of sentinel lymph node biopsy in the management of cutaneous melanoma: A UK consensus statement.

Sentinel node biopsy (SNB) has been at the forefront of the surgical staging of melanoma patients for the past 15 years. The high accuracy of this prognostic staging procedure is now recognised in all international guidelines for melanoma. However during this period there have been a number of important changes in the management of melanoma, many occurring within the past five years. The outcomes of five recent randomised Phase 3 trials have established the role of adjuvant targeted therapy and immunotherapy in resected Stage 3 and Stage 4 disease and have potentially changed the role of SNB. Two landmark international prospective studies have examined the benefit of performing a completion lymph node dissection (CLND) following the detection of microscopicallyinvolved sentinel nodes. Finally, the marked increase in the incidence of melanoma and the role of SNB in potentially guiding therapy has resulted in a significant increase in the pathological workload of the dermatopathology services. To address these issues a multi-disciplinary consensus meeting involving many melanoma experts from the UK was convened in May 2018. Three main areas were considered: oncology, surgery and pathology. This report is a summary of the conclusions reached, which were agreed by the clinicians attending the meeting and then externally peer reviewed. The recommendations summarised in this Consensus Statement.

A phase I study of extended dosing with lomeguatrib with temozolomide in patients with advanced melanoma.

Lomeguatrib, an O(6)-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase inactivator, was evaluated in an extended dosing regimen with temozolomide, designed according to pharmacodynamic data from previous studies. Patients with unresectable stage 3 or 4 cutaneous or unknown primary melanoma metastases were treated with lomeguatrib 40 mg, b.i.d. for 10 or 14 days and temozolomide 75-100 mg m(-2) on days 1-5. Drugs were administered orally with cycles repeated every 28 days, for up to six cycles. A total of 32 patients were recruited to the study. Lomeguatrib for 10 days with temozolomide 75 mg m(-2) was established as the optimal extended lomeguatrib dosing schedule, with haematological toxicity being dose limiting. There were two partial responses to treatment giving an overall response rate of 6.25%. Extending lomeguatrib administration beyond that of temozolomide requires a reduced dose of the latter agent. Only limited clinical activity was seen, suggesting no advantage for this regimen over conventional temozolomide administration in the treatment of melanoma.