CHARIOT: a phase I study of berzosertib with chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal and other solid cancers using time to event continual reassessment method.

BACKGROUND: Berzosertib (M6620) is a highly potent (IC50 = 19 nM) and selective, first-in-class ataxia telangiectasia-mutated and Rad3-related protein kinase (ATR) inhibitor. This trial assessed the safety, preliminary efficacy, and tolerance of berzosertib in oesophageal cancer (A1 cohort) with RT and advanced solid tumours (A2 cohort) with cisplatin and capecitabine. METHODS: Single-arm, open-label dose-escalation (Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Method) trial with 16 patients in A1 and 18 in A2. A1 tested six dose levels of berzosertib with RT (35 Gy over 15 fractions in 3 weeks). RESULTS: No dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) in A1. Eight grade 3 treatment-related AEs occurred in five patients, with rash being the most common. The highest dose (240 mg/m2) was determined as the recommended phase II dose (RP2D) for A1. Seven DLTs in two patients in A2. The RP2D of berzosertib was 140 mg/m2 once weekly. The most common grade ≥3 treatment-related AEs were neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. No treatment-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Berzosertib combined with RT is feasible and well tolerated in oesophageal cancer patients at high palliative doses. Berzosertib with cisplatin and capecitabine was well tolerated in advanced cancer. Further investigation is warranted in a phase 2 setting. CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER: EU Clinical Trials Register (EudraCT) - 2015-003965-27 ClinicalTrials.gov - NCT03641547.

Fluoropyrimidine type, patient age, tumour sidedness and mutation status as determinants of benefit in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer treated with EGFR monoclonal antibodies: individual patient data pooled analysis of randomised trials from the ARCAD database.

BACKGROUND: KRAS mutations in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are used as predictive biomarkers to select therapy with EGFR monoclonal antibodies (mAbs). Other factors may be significant determinants of benefit. METHODS: Individual patient data from randomised trials with a head-to-head comparison between EGFR mAb versus no EGFR mAb (chemotherapy alone or best supportive care) in mCRC, across all lines of therapy, were pooled. Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) were compared between groups. Treatment effects within the predefined KRAS biomarker subsets were estimated by adjusted hazard ratio (HRadj) and 95% confidence interval (CI). EGFR mAb efficacy was measured within the KRAS wild-type subgroup according to BRAF and NRAS mutation status. In both KRAS wild-type and mutant subgroups, additional factors that could impact EGFR mAb efficacy were explored including the type of chemotherapy, line of therapy, age, sex, tumour sidedness and site of metastasis. RESULTS: 5675 patients from 8 studies were included, all with known mCRC KRAS mutation status. OS (HRadj 0.90, 95% CI 0.84-0.98, p = 0.01) and PFS benefit (HRadj 0.73, 95% CI 0.68-0.79, p < 0.001) from EGFR mAbs was observed in the KRAS wild-type group. PFS benefit was seen in patients treated with fluorouracil (HRadj 0.75, 95% CI 0.68-0.82) but not with capecitabine-containing regimens (HRadj 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.26) (pinteraction = 0.002). Sidedness also interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy, with survival benefit restricted to left-sided disease (pinteraction = 0.038). PFS benefits differed according to age, with benefits greater in those under 70 (pinteraction = 0.001). The survival benefit was not demonstrated in those patients with mutations found in the KRAS, NRAS or BRAF genes. The presence of liver metastases interacted with EGFR mAb efficacy in patients with KRAS mutant mCRC (pinteraction = 0.004). CONCLUSION: The benefit provided by EGFR mAbs in KRAS WT mCRC is associated with left-sided primary tumour location, younger patient age and absence of NRAS or BRAF mutations. Survival benefit is observed with fluorouracil but not capecitabine. Exploratory results support further research in KRAS mutant mCRC without liver metastases.

Next generation radiotheranostics promoting precision medicine.

Radiotheranostics is a field of rapid growth with some approved treatments including 131I for thyroid cancer, 223Ra for osseous metastases, 177Lu-DOTATATE for neuroendocrine tumors, and 177Lu-PSMA (prostate-specific membrane antigen) for prostate cancer, and several more under investigation. In this review, we will cover the fundamentals of radiotheranostics, the key clinical studies that have led to current success, future developments with new targets, radionuclides and platforms, challenges with logistics and reimbursement and, lastly, forthcoming considerations regarding dosimetry, identifying the right line of therapy, artificial intelligence and more.

The hard road to data interpretation: 3 or 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with stage III colon cancer?

Background: Six months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is standard for patients with stage III colon cancer following surgery. However, oxaliplatin is associated with peripheral neurotoxicity which worsens over treatment duration. Consequently, a shorter treatment duration, if equally effective, would be extremely beneficial. A pooled analysis of data for 12 834 stage III colon cancer patients, from six randomised phase III trials of adjuvant therapy, the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant chemotherapy study, was carried out and the results presented at the ASCO Annual Meeting 2017. To clarify the potential impact of these results on clinical practice, ESMO decided to sponsor a special session at their 2017 Annual Meeting dedicated to achieving a more meaningful interpretation of the results. Methods: Medical oncologists from Europe, the United States and Asia selected for their involvement in the trials, together with an independent statistician and an independent clinician, were invited to provide their independent interpretations of the results and contribute to a moderated panel discussion. The pooled analysis evaluated the non-inferiority of 3 versus 6 months of adjuvant FOLFOX/CAPOX therapy but not the non-inferiority of 3 months CAPOX versus 6 months FOLFOX therapy. Results: There was strong evidence of an interaction between the choice of regimen (CAPOX or FOLFOX) and duration of treatment. Patients were classified as either 'fighters' or 'fatalists', and 3-month CAPOX was considered standard for patients classified as fatalists even if they had high-risk disease. However, patients classified as 'fighters' would only receive 3 months of CAPOX if they had low-risk disease but would always receive 6 months of CAPOX/FOLFOX if they had T4 disease. The panel was split on whether they would advocate 3 or 6 months CAPOX therapy based on high-risk N2 disease. Conclusions: The main drivers of the duration of treatment were choice of regimen and patient attitude, with risk, based mainly on T4 stage, having less influence.

Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCALOP: a phase II randomised trial of gemcitabine- or capecitabine-based chemoradiation for locally advanced pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: SCALOP, a randomised, phase II trial, tested the activity and safety of gemcitabine (GEM)-based and capecitabine (CAP)-based chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). Here we present the long-term outcomes. METHODS: Eligibility: histologically proven LAPC ⩽7 cm. Following 12 weeks of induction GEMCAP chemotherapy (three cycles: GEM 1000 mg m-2 days 1, 8, 15; CAP 830 mg m-2 days 1-21 q28 days) patients with stable/responding disease, tumour ⩽6 cm, and WHO Performance Status 0-1 were randomised to receive one cycle GEMCAP followed by CAP (830 mg m-2 b.d. on weekdays only) or GEM (300 mg m-2 weekly) with radiation (50.4 Gy per 28 fractions). RESULTS: One-hundred fourteen patients (28 UK centres) were registered between 24 December 2009 and 25 October 2011, and 74 were randomised (CAP-RT=36; GEM-RT=38). At the time of this analysis, 105 of the 114 patients had died and the surviving 9 patients had been followed up for a median of 10.9 months (IQR: 2.9-18.7). Updated median OS was 17.6 months (95% CI: 14.6-22.7) in the CAP-CRT arm and 14.6 months (95% CI: 11.1-16.0) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted hazard ratio (HR): 0.68 (95% CI: 0.38-1.21, P=0.185)); median progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.0 months (95% CI: 10.0-15.2) in the CAP-CRT arm and 10.4 months (95% CI: 8.8-12.7) in the GEM-CRT arm (intention-to-treat adjusted HR: 0.60 (95% CI: 0.32-1.14, P=0.120)). In baseline multivariable model, age ⩾65 years, better performance status, CA19.9<613 IU l-1, and shorter tumour diameter predicted improved OS. CAP-CRT, age ⩾65 years, better performance status, CA19.9 <46 IU ml-1 predicted improved OS and PFS in the pre-radiotherapy model. Nine-month PFS was highly predictive of OS. CONCLUSIONS: CAP-CRT remains the superior regimen. SCALOP showed that patients with CA19.9 <46 IU ml-1 after induction chemotherapy are more likely to benefit from CRT.

Long-term results and recurrence patterns from SCOPE-1: a phase II/III randomised trial of definitive chemoradiotherapy +/- cetuximab in oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The SCOPE-1 study tested the role of adding cetuximab to conventional definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and demonstrated greater toxicity and worse survival outcomes. We present the long-term outcomes and patterns of recurrence. METHODS: SCOPE-1 was a phase II/III trial in which patients were randomised to cisplatin 60 mg m-2 (day 1) and capecitabine 625 mg m-2 bd (days 1-21) for four cycles +/- cetuximab 400 mg m-2 day 1 then by 250 mg m-2 weekly. Radiotherapy consisted of 50 Gy/25# given concurrently with cycles 3 and 4. Recruitment was between February 2008 and February 2012, when the IDMC recommended closure on the basis of futility. RESULTS: About 258 patients (dCRT=129; dCRT+cetuximab (dCRT+C)=129) were recruited from 36 centres. About 72.9% (n=188) had squamous cell histology. The median follow-up (IQR) was 46.2 (35.9-48.3) months for surviving patients. The median overall survival (OS; months; 95% CI) was 34.5 (24.7-42.3) in dCRT and 24.7 (18.6-31.3) in dCRT+C (hazard ratio (HR)=1.25, 95% CIs: 0.93-1.69, P=0.137). Median progression-free survival (PFS; months; 95% CI) was 24.1 (15.3-29.9) and 15.9 (10.7-20.8) months, respectively (HR=1.28, 95% CIs: 0.94-1.75; P=0.114). On multivariable analysis only earlier stage, full-dose RT, and higher cisplatin dose intensity were associated with improved OS. CONCLUSIONS: The mature analysis demonstrates that the dCRT regimen used in the study provided useful survival outcomes despite its use in patients who were largely unfit for surgery or who had inoperable disease. Given the competing risk of systemic and local failure, future studies should continue to focus on enhancing local control as well as optimising systemic therapy.

Investigating the poor outcomes of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer: analysis from 2530 patients in randomised clinical trials.

Background: To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients, we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types. Patients and methods: 2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression-free survival, response rate, disease control rate, post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival. Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU) and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status. Results: 231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% versus 72%; adjusted OR = 0.76, P = 0.24) and PFS (5.7 versus 6.3 months; adjusted HR = 1.14, P = 0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 versus 9.2 months, adjusted HR = 1.69, P < 0.001). Fewer BRAF-mutant patients received second-line treatment (33% versus 51%, P < 0.001), but BRAF-mutation was not associated with inferior second-line outcomes (RR adjusted OR = 0.56, P = 0.45; PFS adjusted HR = 1.01, P = 0.93). Significant clinical heterogeneity within the BRAF-mutant population was observed: a proportion (24.3%) had good first-line PFS and P-PS (both >6 months; OS = 24.0 months); however, 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS = 4.7 months. Conclusions: BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression.

How health-related quality of life assessment should be used in advanced colorectal cancer clinical trials.

Traditionally, the efficacy of cancer treatment in patients with advance or metastatic disease in clinical studies has been studied using overall survival and more recently tumor-based end points such as progression-free survival, measurements of response to treatment. However, these seem not to be the relevant clinical end points in current situation if such end points were no validated as surrogate of overall survival to demonstrate the clinical efficacy. Appropriate, meaningful, primary patient-oriented and patient-reported end points that adequately measure the effects of new therapeutic interventions are then crucial for the advancement of clinical research in metastatic colorectal cancer to complement the results of tumor-based end points. Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is effectively an evaluation of quality of life and its relationship with health over time. HRQoL includes the patient report at least of the way a disease or its treatment affects its physical, emotional and social well-being. Over the past few years, several phase III trials in a variety of solid cancers have assessed the incremental value of HRQoL in addition to the traditional end points of tumor response and survival results. HRQoL could provide not only complementary clinical data to the primary outcomes, but also more precise predictive and prognostic value. This end point is useful for both clinicians and patients in order to achieve the dogma of precision medicine. The present article examines the use of HRQoL in phase III metastatic colorectal cancer clinical trials, outlines the importance of HRQoL assessment methods, analysis, and results presentation. Moreover, it discusses the relevance of including HRQoL as a primary/co-primary end point to support the progression-free survival results and to assess efficacy of treatment in the advanced disease setting.

ESMO consensus guidelines for the management of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common malignancies in Western countries. Over the last 20 years, and the last decade in particular, the clinical outcome for patients with metastatic CRC (mCRC) has improved greatly due not only to an increase in the number of patients being referred for and undergoing surgical resection of their localised metastatic disease but also to a more strategic approach to the delivery of systemic therapy and an expansion in the use of ablative techniques. This reflects the increase in the number of patients that are being managed within a multidisciplinary team environment and specialist cancer centres, and the emergence over the same time period not only of improved imaging techniques but also prognostic and predictive molecular markers. Treatment decisions for patients with mCRC must be evidence-based. Thus, these ESMO consensus guidelines have been developed based on the current available evidence to provide a series of evidence-based recommendations to assist in the treatment and management of patients with mCRC in this rapidly evolving treatment setting.

Patient-reported outcomes during and after definitive chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Limited data describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of localised oesophageal cancer treated with definitive chemoradiotherapy(CRT). The phase 2/3 SCOPE-1 trial assessed the effectiveness of CRT±cetuximab. The trial for the first time provided an opportunity to describe PROs from a multi-centre group of patients treated with CRT that are presented here. METHODS: Patients undergoing CRT±cetuximab within the SCOPE-1 trial (258 patients from 36 UK centres) completed generic-, disease- and treatment-specific health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-OES18, Dermatology Life-Quality Index (DLQI)) at baseline and at 7, 13, 24, 52 and 104 weeks. Mean EORTC functional scale scores (>15 point change significant), DLQI scores (>4 point change significant) and proportions of patients (>15% significant) with 'minimal' or 'severe' symptoms are presented. RESULTS: Questionnaire response rates were good. At baseline, EORTC functional scores were high (>75%) and few symptoms were reported except for severe problems with fatigue, insomnia and eating-related symptoms (e.g., appetite loss, dysphagia, dry mouth) in both groups(>15%). Functional aspects of health deteriorated and symptoms increased with treatment and by week 13 global quality of life, physical, role and social function significantly deteriorated and more problems with fatigue, dyspnoea, appetite loss and trouble with taste were reported. Recovery occurred by 6 months (except severe fatigue and insomnia in >15% of patients) and maintained at follow-up with no differences between groups. CONCLUSIONS: CRT for localised oesophageal cancer has a significant detrimental impact on many aspects of HRQL; however, recovery is achieved by 6 months and maintained with the exception of persisting problems with severe fatigue and insomnia. The data suggest that the HRQL recovery after definitive CRT is quicker, and there is little lasting deficit compared with treatment including surgery. These data need to be compared with HRQL data from studies evaluating treatments including surgery for oesophageal cancer.

A feasibility study testing four hypotheses with phase II outcomes in advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS3): a model for randomised controlled trials in the era of personalised medicine?

BACKGROUND: Molecular characteristics of cancer vary between individuals. In future, most trials will require assessment of biomarkers to allocate patients into enriched populations in which targeted therapies are more likely to be effective. The MRC FOCUS3 trial is a feasibility study to assess key elements in the planning of such studies. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced colorectal cancer were registered from 24 centres between February 2010 and April 2011. With their consent, patients' tumour samples were analysed for KRAS/BRAF oncogene mutation status and topoisomerase 1 (topo-1) immunohistochemistry. Patients were then classified into one of four molecular strata; within each strata patients were randomised to one of two hypothesis-driven experimental therapies or a common control arm (FOLFIRI chemotherapy). A 4-stage suite of patient information sheets (PISs) was developed to avoid patient overload. RESULTS: A total of 332 patients were registered, 244 randomised. Among randomised patients, biomarker results were provided within 10 working days (w.d.) in 71%, 15 w.d. in 91% and 20 w.d. in 99%. DNA mutation analysis was 100% concordant between two laboratories. Over 90% of participants reported excellent understanding of all aspects of the trial. In this randomised phase II setting, omission of irinotecan in the low topo-1 group was associated with increased response rate and addition of cetuximab in the KRAS, BRAF wild-type cohort was associated with longer progression-free survival. CONCLUSIONS: Patient samples can be collected and analysed within workable time frames and with reproducible mutation results. Complex multi-arm designs are acceptable to patients with good PIS. Randomisation within each cohort provides outcome data that can inform clinical practice.

Stereotactic Magnetic Resonance-Guided Daily Adaptive SABR (SMART) for Localised Non-Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: First Reported Clinical Outcomes From the UK.

AIMS: Prognosis of locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC) remains poor with limited therapeutic options. Radiation therapy in pancreatic cancer has been restricted by the disease's proximity to radiosensitive organs at risk (OAR). However, stereotactic magnetic resonance-guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) has demonstrated promise in delivering ablative doses safely. We sought to report clinical outcomes from a UK-based Compassionate Access Programme that provided access to SMART to patients with LAPC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a registry retrospective study conducted at a single centre with access to SMART. Patients with LAPC were treated with prescription dose of 40 Gy in 5 fractions. The planning objective was that 98% of PTV received ≥95% of the prescribed dose, prioritising duodenal, stomach and bowel UK SABR consortium constraints. Daily online adaptation was performed using magnetic resonance guidance and on-table re-optimisation. 0-3 months and > 3-month post-treatment-related toxicities, local progression-free survival, metastatic-free survival and overall survival were evaluated. RESULTS: 55 patients were treated with SMART at our institution from 2020 to 2022. Median follow-up from date of diagnosis was 17 months (range 5-37 months). Median age was 69.87% of patients underwent induction chemotherapy. 71% of patients reported 0-1 grade acute toxicity only. No grade >3 acute toxicity was reported. 5 patients (9%) reported a grade 3 toxicity (fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, duodenal stricture). No grade >3 toxicity after 3 months was reported. 6 (10%) of patients had grade 3 toxicity (fatigue, nausea, abdominal pain, duodenal haemorrhage). Median local PFS post diagnosis was 17 months (95% CI 15.3-18.7). Median OS post diagnosis was 19 months (95% CI 15.9-22.1). One-year local control post SMART was 65%. CONCLUSION: This is the first UK-reported experience of MR-guided daily adaptive pancreatic SABR. SMART shows promise in delivering ablative doses with acceptable toxicity rates and good clinical outcomes.

Fluoropyrimidine-induced hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity: recommendations for the use of the oral fluoropyrimidine S-1 in metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fluoropyrimidines (FPs) are an essential part of the majority of systemic regimens in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (CRC). The use of the oral FP S-1 has been approved by the European Medicines Agency as monotherapy or in combination with oxaliplatin or irinotecan, with or without bevacizumab, for the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC in whom it is not possible to continue treatment with another FP due to hand-foot syndrome (HFS) or cardiovascular toxicity (CVT). Subsequently, this indication has been included in the 2022 ESMO guidelines for metastatic CRC. Recommendations for use in daily practice are not available. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Based on peer-reviewed published data on the use of S-1 in Western patients with metastatic CRC who switched from infusional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) or capecitabine to S-1 for reasons of HFS or CVT, recommendations for its use were formulated by an international group of medical oncologists with expertise in the treatment of metastatic CRC and a cardio-oncologist. RESULTS: In patients who experience pain and/or functional impairment due to HFS during treatment with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU, a switch to S-1 is recommended without prior dose reduction of capecitabine/5-FU. S-1 should preferably be initiated at full dose when HFS has decreased to grade ≤1. In patients with cardiac complaints, in whom an association with capecitabine or infusional 5-FU treatment cannot be excluded, capecitabine/5-FU should be discontinued and a switch to S-1 is recommended. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should guide clinicians in daily practice in the treatment of patients with metastatic CRC with FP-containing regimens.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine vs oxaliplatin/infusional 5-FU in advanced colorectal cancer: the MRC COIN trial.

BACKGROUND: COIN compared first-line continuous chemotherapy with the same chemotherapy given intermittently or with cetuximab in advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC). METHODS: Choice between oxaliplatin/capecitabine (OxCap) and oxaliplatin/leucovorin (LV)/infusional 5-FU (OxFU) was by physician and patient choice and switching regimen was allowed. We compared OxCap with OxFU and OxCap+cetuximab with OxFU+cetuximab retrospectively in patients and examined efficacy, toxicity profiles and the effect of mild renal impairment. RESULTS: In total, 64% of 2397 patients received OxCap(± cetuximab). Overall survival, progression free survival and overall response rate were similar between OxCap and OxFU but rate of radical surgeries was higher for OxFU. Progression free survival was longer for OxFU+cetuximab compared with OxCap+cetuximab but other efficacy measures were similar. Oxaliplatin/LV/infusional 5-FU (± cetuximab) was associated with more mucositis and infection whereas OxCap(± cetuximab) caused more gastrointestinal toxicities and palmar-plantar erythema. In total, 118 patients switched regimen, mainly due to toxicity; only 16% came off their second regimen due to intolerance. Patients with creatinine clearance (CrCl) 50-80 ml min(-1) on OxCap(± cetuximab) or OxFU+cetuximab had more dose modifications than those with better renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, OxFU and OxCap are equally effective in treating aCRC. However, the toxicity profiles differ and switching from one regimen to the other for poor tolerance is a reasonable option. Patients with CrCl 50-80 ml min(-1) on both regimens require close toxicity monitoring.

Dual inhibition of epidermal growth factor and insulin-like 1 growth factor receptors reduce intestinal adenoma burden in the Apc(min/+) mouse.

BACKGROUND: Identification of early molecular pathway changes may be useful as biomarkers for tumour response/resistance prediction, and here we provide direct in vivo proof of this concept. The type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor (IGF1R) has been implicated in various aspects of adenoma development and metastasis. We show here that, in murine intestinal adenomas acutely exposed to a small molecular inhibitor of EGFR (gefitinib), there is concurrent suppression of EGFR downstream signalling and induction of IGF signalling. We therefore tested the hypothesis that blockade of EGFR signalling was being tempered by compensatory activation of the IGF pathway by examining the effect of chronic suppression of IGF1R using AZ12253801, a small molecular tyrosine kinase inhibitor of IGF1R. METHODS: Male Apc(min/+) mice with an intestinal tumour burden were exposed to a single dose of an inhibitor against EGFR (gefitinib), IGF1R (AZ12253801), 0.5% Tween 80 or combined EGFR/IGF1R inhibitor and culled 4 h post dosing. Tumour tissue was analysed to detect the early molecular pathways induced and anti-tumour phenotypic changes. Cohorts of male Apc(min/+) mice (n=15-17) were subsequently treated with gefitinib for a period of 8 weeks and subsequently exposed to single (either gefitinib or AZ12253801) or combined (gefitinib and AZ12253801) therapy. We also included a vehicle-treated cohort, which was never exposed to gefitinib and became symptomatic of the disease by day 150. RESULTS: Both single treatments delayed the onset of disease symptoms. Combined dosing with gefitinib and AZ12253801 similarly delayed the onset of symptoms, and at 200 days suppressed small intestinal tumourigenesis more effectively than either treatment alone (median small intestinal adenoma volume (47 mm(3) (comb) vs 248 mm(3) (AZ12253801), P=0.0003 and 47 mm(3) (comb) vs 123 mm(3) (gefitinib), P=0.0042, Mann-Whitney (two-sided) test). CONCLUSION: Our data provide evidence in support of the use of combinatorial therapy, and establishes the need to further define the precise benefit in vivo.

Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: In 1999, 270,000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research. METHODS: The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established. RESULTS: Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32,000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established. CONCLUSION: The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care.

Research-intensive cancer care in the NHS in the UK.

In the late 1990 s, in response to poor national cancer survival figures, government monies were invested to enhance recruitment to clinical cancer research. Commencing with England in 2001 and then rolling out across all four countries, a network of clinical cancer research infrastructure was created, the new staff being linked to existing clinical care structures including multi-disciplinary teams. In parallel, a UK-wide co-ordination of cancer research funders driven by the 'virtual' National Cancer Research Institute, combined to create a 'whole-system approach' linking research funders, researchers and NHS clinicians all working to the same ends. Over the next 10 years, recruitment to clinical trials and other well-designed studies, increased 4-fold, reaching 17% of the incident cancer population, the highest national rate world-wide. The additional resources led to more studies opened, and more patients recruited across the country, for all types of cancers and irrespective of additional clinical research staff in some hospitals. In 2006, a co-ordinated decision was made to increasingly focus on randomized trials, leading to increased recruitment, without any fall-off in accrual to non-randomized and observational studies. The National Cancer Research Network has supported large successful trials which are changing clinical practice in many cancers.

The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: barriers to randomised clinical trial (RCT) recruitment include failure to identify eligible patients, reluctance of staff to approach them and attitudes of some health-care professionals and patients. As part of a larger UK prospective study examining the communication and involvement in RCTs of 22 multidisciplinary teams in Wales, we also assessed the attitudes of patients they treat towards trials. METHODS: out of 1146 patients attending outpatient departments who were approached, 1146 (93%) completed the seven-item Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ), probing their general attitudes towards medical research and likely participation in a hypothetical two-arm RCT. RESULTS: randomisation initially deterred many patients from endorsing a willingness to participate. However, if information about the trial logic, voluntary nature and rights to withdraw were provided, together with further treatment details, 83% (886 out of 1066) would potentially participate. Other variables associated with a positive inclination towards participation included previous trial experience (P<0.01), male gender (P<0.01) and younger age, with patients > or =70 years less likely to consider trial entry (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: the majority of patients were receptive to RCT participation. Many of those initially disinclined because of randomisation would consider joining if given further details that form part of standard GCP consent guidelines. These data show the importance and need for clear communication and information to encourage RCT participation. Evidence-based training courses are available to assist with this.

Toxicity associated with combination oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine with or without cetuximab in the MRC COIN trial experience.

We present the preliminary toxicity data from the MRC COIN trial, a phase III randomised controlled trial of first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with particular reference to the addition of cetuximab to an oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination. A total of 804 patients were randomised between March 2005 and July 2006 from 78 centres throughout the United Kingdom. Patients were allocated to oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with or without the addition of weekly cetuximab. The choice of fluoropyrimidine (either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine) was decided by the treating physician and patient before randomisation. Toxicity data were collected from all patients. Two hundred and three patients received 5FU plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG, 25%), 333 oxaliplatin+capecitabine (Xelox, 41%), 102 received OxMdG+cetuximab (OxMdG+C, 13%) and 166 Xelox+cetuximab (21%). Percent grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhoea 6, 15, 13 and 25%, nausea/vomiting 3, 7, 7 and 14% for OxMdG, Xelox, OxMdG+C and Xelox+C, respectively. Sixty-day all-cause mortality was 6, 5, 5 and 7%. Statistically significant differences were evident for patients receiving Xelox+cetuximab vs Xelox alone: diarrhoea relative risk (RR) 1.69 (1.17, 2.43, P=0.005) and nausea/vomiting RR 2.01 (1.16, 3.47, P=0.012). The excess toxicity observed in the oxaliplatin-, capecitabine-, cetuximab-treated patients led the trial management group to conclude that a capecitabine dose adjustment was required to maintain safety levels when using this regimen.