A three-arm randomised phase II study of the MEK inhibitor selumetinib alone or in combination with paclitaxel in metastatic uveal melanoma.

AIMS: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level. RESULTS: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved. CONCLUSIONS: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing.

A Comparison of Two Methods for Recruiting Children with an Intellectual Disability.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment is a widely cited barrier of representative intellectual disability research, yet it is rarely studied. This study aims to document the rates of recruiting children with intellectual disabilities using two methods and discuss the impact of such methods on sample characteristics. METHODS: Questionnaire completion rates are compared between (i) participants being approached in child development centre waiting rooms and (ii), one year later, the same participants being invited to take part by phone, email and/or post. RESULTS: The face-to-face recruitment method resulted in a better recruitment rate (58.5% compared to 18.5%) and a larger sample (n = 438) than the telephone/email/post sample (n = 40). It also required less hours of researcher time per completed questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS: In-line with previous research, recruitment of participants with intellectual disabilities (or their parents/carers) requires significant time and resources to get a sample of an acceptable size.