NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma.

Background: There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. Methods: NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm. Results: A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

Healthcare Costs of Laparoscopic versus Open Surgery for Rectal Cancer Patients in the First 12 Months: A Secondary Endpoint Analysis of the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT).

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer is widely used, however the healthcare costs are thought to be higher than for open resection. This secondary endpoint analysis of a randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate total healthcare costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery compared with open resection for rectal cancer over a 12-month period. METHODS: Patients in the Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT) were included in a prospective costing analysis. All healthcare use for the index surgery and hospital admission, readmissions, and follow-up care over 12 months were included. Unit costs were valued in Australian dollars (AUD$) using scheduled Medicare fees and hospital cost weights. The primary outcome was mean per patient cost. Non-parametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications was undertaken for robustness checks. RESULTS: Data from 468 patients indicated that the laparoscopic-assisted surgical procedure incurred a mean cost of AUD$4542 (standard deviation [SD] AUD$1050)-AUD$521 higher than the open procedure mean cost of AUD$4021 (SD AUD$804) due to longer operative time and involvement of more costly equipment (95% confidence interval [CI] AUD$354-AUD$692). At 12 months, the average cost for the laparoscopic-assisted and open groups was AUD$43,288 (SD AUD$40,883) and AUD$45,384 (SD AUD$38,659), respectively, due to the shorter subsequent hospital stays. No overall significant cost difference between groups was found (95% CI -AUD$9358 to AUD$5003). One-way sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of the results. CONCLUSION: While initially higher, the costs of laparoscopic-assisted surgery for rectal cancer were similar to open resection at 12 months. Clinicians may choose a surgical approach based on clinical need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Australasian Gastro-Intestinal Trials Group (AGITG) was the legal sponsor and trial coordination was performed by the NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre. The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12609000663257).

Return to work following laparoscopic-assisted resection or open resection for rectal cancer: Findings from AlaCaRT-Australasian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial.

BACKGROUND: Maintaining employment for adults with cancer is important, however, little is known about the impact of surgery for rectal cancer on an individual's capacity to return to work (RTW). This study aimed to determine the impact of laparoscopic vs. open resection on RTW at 12 months. METHODS: Analyses were undertaken among participants randomized in the Australian Laparoscopic Cancer of the Rectum Trial (ALaCaRT), with work status available at baseline (presurgery), and 12 months. Multivariable logistic regression, adjusted for sociodemographic and clinical characteristics estimated the effect of surgery on RTW in any capacity, or return to preoperative work status at 12 months. RESULTS: About 228 of 449 (51%) surviving trial participants at 12 months completed work status questionnaires; mean age was 62 years, 66% males, 117 of these received laparoscopic resection (51%). Of 228, 120 were employed at baseline (90 full-time, 30 part-time). Overall RTW in 120 participants in paid work at baseline was 78% (84% laparoscopic, 70% open surgery). Those employed full-time were more likely to RTW at 12 months (OR, 3.55; 95% CI, 1.02-12.31). Those with distant metastases at baseline were less likely to RTW (OR, 0.07; 95% CI, <0.01-0.83). Laparoscopic surgery was associated with a higher rate of RTW but did not reach statistical significance (OR 2.88; 95% CI, 0.95-8.76). CONCLUSIONS: Full-time work presurgery and the presence of metastatic disease predicts RTW status at 12 months. A laparoscopic-assisted surgical approach to rectal cancer may facilitate more patients to RTW, however, larger sample sizes are likely needed to confirm this result.

Uric acid predicts long-term cardiovascular risk in type 2 diabetes but does not mediate the benefits of fenofibrate: The FIELD study.

AIM: To explore the relationship between baseline uric acid (UA) levels and long-term cardiovascular events in adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and to determine whether the cardioprotective effects of fenofibrate are partly mediated through its UA-lowering effects. METHODS: Data from the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) trial were utilized, comprising 9795 adults with T2D randomly allocated to treatment with fenofibrate or matching placebo. Plasma UA was measured before and after a 6-week, active fenofibrate run-in phase in all participants. Cox proportional hazards models were used to explore the relationships between baseline UA, pre-to-post run-in reductions in UA and long-term cardiovascular outcomes. RESULTS: Mean baseline plasma UA was 0.33 mmol/L (SD 0.08). Baseline UA was a significant predictor of long-term cardiovascular events, with every 0.1 mmol/L higher UA conferring a 21% increase in event rate (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.29, P < .001). This remained significant after adjustment for treatment allocation, cardiovascular risk factors and renal function. The extent of UA reduction during fenofibrate run-in was also a significant predictor of long-term cardiovascular events, with every 0.1 mmol/L greater reduction conferring a 14% lower long-term risk (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.97, P = .015). This effect was not modified by treatment allocation (Pinteraction = .77). CONCLUSIONS: UA is a strong independent predictor of long-term cardiovascular risk in adults with T2D. Although greater reduction in UA on fenofibrate is predictive of lower cardiovascular risk, this does not appear to mediate the cardioprotective effects of fenofibrate.

Baseline Circulating FGF21 Concentrations and Increase after Fenofibrate Treatment Predict More Rapid Glycemic Progression in Type 2 Diabetes: Results from the FIELD Study.

BACKGROUND: It is not known whether circulating fibroblast growth factor 21 (FGF21) concentrations are associated with glycemic progression in patients with established type 2 diabetes. This study reports this relationship in type 2 diabetes patients participating in the Fenofibrate Intervention and Event Lowering in Diabetes (FIELD) trial. METHODS: Plasma FGF21 was quantified in 9697 study participants. Among patients with lifestyle-only glucose control measures at baseline, glycemic progression was defined as the initiation of oral hypoglycemic agents or insulin therapy. We assessed the relationship of FGF21 concentrations with glycohemoglobin (Hb A1c), the homeostasis model assessment of ß-cell function (HOMA-B) and insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), and glycemic progression. RESULTS: Among 2584 patients with lifestyle-only glycemic therapy at baseline, plasma FGF21 concentrations were positively associated with HOMA-IR (5.1% increase per 100% increase in FGF21 concentrations). Patients with higher baseline plasma FGF21 concentrations had higher risk of glycemic progression over a 5-year period (P = 0.02), but the association was not significant after further adjusting for alanine aminotransferase (ALT) enzyme activity. During the fenofibrate active run-in phase, higher tertiles of fenofibrate-induced increase in FGF21 concentrations were associated with higher risk of glycemic progression (adjusted hazards ratio = 1.09 and 1.18 for tertiles 2 and 3, respectively, P for trend = 0.01), even after adjusting for ALT enzyme activity. This association was statistically significant in the fenofibrate group only (P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Higher baseline and fenofibrate-induced increase in FGF21 concentrations predict more rapid glycemic progression in type 2 diabetes patients. This association may be partly explained by hepatic function.