A randomised phase II trial of temozolomide with or without cannabinoids in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (ARISTOCRAT): protocol for a multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult malignant brain tumour, with an incidence of 5 per 100,000 per year in England. Patients with tumours showing O6-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation represent around 40% of newly diagnosed GBM. Relapse/tumour recurrence is inevitable. There is no agreed standard treatment for patients with GBM, therefore, it is aimed at delaying further tumour progression and maintaining health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limited clinical trial data exist using cannabinoids in combination with temozolomide (TMZ) in this setting, but early phase data demonstrate prolonged overall survival compared to TMZ alone, with few additional side effects. Jazz Pharmaceuticals (previously GW Pharma Ltd.) have developed nabiximols (trade name Sativex®), an oromucosal spray containing a blend of cannabis plant extracts, that we aim to assess for preliminary efficacy in patients with recurrent GBM. METHODS: ARISTOCRAT is a phase II, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial to assess cannabinoids in patients with recurrent MGMT methylated GBM who are suitable for treatment with TMZ. Patients who have relapsed ≥ 3 months after completion of initial first-line treatment will be randomised 2:1 to receive either nabiximols or placebo in combination with TMZ. The primary outcome is overall survival time defined as the time in whole days from the date of randomisation to the date of death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include overall survival at 12 months, progression-free survival time, HRQoL (using patient reported outcomes from QLQ-C30, QLQ-BN20 and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires), and adverse events. DISCUSSION: Patients with recurrent MGMT promoter methylated GBM represent a relatively good prognosis sub-group of patients with GBM. However, their median survival remains poor and, therefore, more effective treatments are needed. The phase II design of this trial was chosen, rather than phase III, due to the lack of data currently available on cannabinoid efficacy in this setting. A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial will ensure an unbiased robust evaluation of the treatment and will allow potential expansion of recruitment into a phase III trial should the emerging phase II results warrant this development. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: 11460478. CLINICALTRIALS: Gov: NCT05629702.

Standard Versus Modified Ipilimumab, in Combination With Nivolumab, in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Randomized Phase II Trial (PRISM).

PURPOSE: Ipilimumab (IPI), in combination with nivolumab (NIVO), is an approved frontline treatment option for patients with intermediate- or poor-risk advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC). We conducted a randomized phase II trial to evaluate whether administering IPI once every 12 weeks (modified), instead of once every 3 weeks (standard), in combination with NIVO, is associated with a favorable toxicity profile. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients with clear-cell aRCC were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive four doses of modified or standard IPI, 1 mg/kg, in combination with NIVO (3 mg/kg). The primary end point was the proportion of patients with a grade 3-5 treatment-related adverse event (trAE) among those who received at least one dose of therapy. The key secondary end point was 12-month progression-free survival (PFS) in the modified arm compared with historical sunitinib control. The study was not designed to formally compare arms for efficacy. RESULTS: Between March 2018 and January 2020, 192 patients (69.8% intermediate/poor-risk) were randomly assigned and received at least one dose of study drug. The incidence of grade 3-5 trAEs was significantly lower among participants receiving modified versus standard IPI (32.8% v 53.1%; odds ratio, 0.43 [90% CI, 0.25 to 0.72]; P = .0075). The 12-month PFS (90% CI) using modified IPI was 46.1% (38.6 to 53.2). At a median follow-up of 21 months, the overall response rate was 45.3% versus 35.9% and the median PFS was 10.8 months versus 9.8 months in the modified and standard IPI groups, respectively. CONCLUSION: Rates of grade 3-5 trAEs were significantly lower in patients receiving modified versus standard IPI. Although 12-month PFS did not meet the prespecified efficacy threshold compared with historical control, informal comparison of treatment groups did not suggest any reduction in efficacy with the modified schedule.

Randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the effect of the omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) on colorectal cancer recurrence and survival after surgery for resectable liver metastases: EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 (EMT2) study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: There remains an unmet need for safe and cost-effective adjunctive treatment of advanced colorectal cancer (CRC). The omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) is safe, well-tolerated and has anti-inflammatory as well as antineoplastic properties. A phase 2 randomised trial of preoperative EPA free fatty acid 2 g daily in patients undergoing surgery for CRC liver metastasis showed no difference in the primary endpoint (histological tumour proliferation index) compared with placebo. However, the trial demonstrated possible benefit for the prespecified exploratory endpoint of postoperative disease-free survival. Therefore, we tested the hypothesis that EPA treatment, started before liver resection surgery (and continued postoperatively), improves CRC outcomes in patients with CRC liver metastasis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The EPA for Metastasis Trial 2 trial is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of 4 g EPA ethyl ester (icosapent ethyl (IPE; Vascepa)) daily in patients undergoing liver resection surgery for CRC liver metastasis with curative intent. Trial treatment continues for a minimum of 2 years and maximum of 4 years, with 6 monthly assessments, including quality of life outcomes, as well as annual clinical record review after the trial intervention. The primary endpoint is CRC progression-free survival. Key secondary endpoints are overall survival, as well as the safety and tolerability of IPE. A minimum 388 participants are estimated to provide 247 CRC progression events during minimum 2-year follow-up, allowing detection of an HR of 0.7 in favour of IPE, with a power of 80% at the 5% (two sided) level of significance, assuming drop-out of 15%. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical and health research authority approval was obtained in January 2018. All data will be collected by 2025. Full trial results will be published in 2026. Secondary analyses of health economic data, biomarker studies and other translational work will be published subsequently. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03428477.

Can Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Add Meaningful Benefit in Addition to Induction Chemotherapy in the Management of Borderline Resectable and Locally Advanced Pancreatic Cancer?: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The role of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy (RT) after induction chemotherapy (IC) in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma is debatable. This systematic review aimed to explore this. METHODS: We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane database. Studies were selected reporting outcomes on resection rate, R0 resection, pathological response, radiological response, progression-free survival, overall survival, local control, morbidity, and mortality. RESULTS: The search resulted in 6635 articles. After 2 rounds of screening, 34 publications were selected. We found 3 randomized controlled studies and 1 prospective cohort study, and the rest were retrospective studies. There is consistent evidence that addition of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or RT after IC improves pathological response and local control. There are conflicting results in terms of other outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant chemoradiotherapy or RT after IC improves local control and pathological response in borderline resectable and locally advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. The role of modern RT in improving other outcome requires further research.

Temporary treatment cessation versus continuation of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (STAR): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1). INTERPRETATION: Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Intravenous Oncolytic Vaccinia Virus Therapy Results in a Differential Immune Response between Cancer Patients.

Pexa-Vec is an engineered Wyeth-strain vaccinia oncolytic virus (OV), which has been tested extensively in clinical trials, demonstrating enhanced cytotoxic T cell infiltration into tumours following treatment. Favourable immune consequences to Pexa-Vec include the induction of an interferon (IFN) response, followed by inflammatory cytokine/chemokine secretion. This promotes tumour immune infiltration, innate and adaptive immune cell activation and T cell priming, culminating in targeted tumour cell killing, i.e., an immunologically 'cold' tumour microenvironment is transformed into a 'hot' tumour. However, as with all immunotherapies, not all patients respond in a uniformly favourable manner. Our study herein, shows a differential immune response by patients to intravenous Pexa-Vec therapy, whereby some patients responded to the virus in a typical and expected manner, demonstrating a significant IFN induction and subsequent peripheral immune activation. However, other patients experienced a markedly subdued immune response and appeared to exhibit an exhausted phenotype at baseline, characterised by higher baseline immune checkpoint expression and regulatory T cell (Treg) levels. This differential baseline immunological profile accurately predicted the subsequent response to Pexa-Vec and may, therefore, enable the development of predictive biomarkers for Pexa-Vec and OV therapies more widely. If confirmed in larger clinical trials, these immunological biomarkers may enable a personalised approach, whereby patients with an exhausted baseline immune profile are treated with immune checkpoint blockade, with the aim of reversing immune exhaustion, prior to or alongside OV therapy.

Neoadjuvant Intravenous Oncolytic Vaccinia Virus Therapy Promotes Anticancer Immunity in Patients.

Improving the chances of curing patients with cancer who have had surgery to remove metastatic sites of disease is a priority area for cancer research. Pexa-Vec (Pexastimogene Devacirepvec; JX-594, TG6006) is a principally immunotherapeutic oncolytic virus that has reached late-phase clinical trials. We report the results of a single-center, nonrandomized biological end point study (trial registration: EudraCT number 2012-000704-15), which builds on the success of the presurgical intravenous delivery of oncolytic viruses to tumors. Nine patients with either colorectal cancer liver metastases or metastatic melanoma were treated with a single intravenous infusion of Pexa-Vec ahead of planned surgical resection of the metastases. Grade 3 and 4 Pexa-Vec-associated side effects were lymphopaenia and neutropaenia. Pexa-Vec was peripherally carried in plasma and was not associated with peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Upon surgical resection, Pexa-Vec was found in the majority of analyzed tumors. Pexa-Vec therapy associated with IFNα secretion, chemokine induction, and resulted in transient innate and long-lived adaptive anticancer immunity. In the 2 patients with significant and complete tumor necrosis, a reduction in the peripheral T-cell receptor diversity was observed at the time of surgery. These results support the development of presurgical oncolytic vaccinia virus-based therapies to stimulate anticancer immunity and increase the chances to cure patients with cancer.

Markers of tumor inflammation as prognostic factors for overall survival in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer receiving first-line FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Identifying pretreatment blood markers that distinguish prognostic groups of patients with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) under first-line FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy has the potential to improve management of this condition. Aim of this study was to determine the prognostic utility of a range of pretreatment, inflammation-related, blood cell markers in this group of patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from a training cohort were analyzed to identify potential pretreatment blood markers correlating to survival outcomes. The most informative markers were further analyzed in a validation cohort comprised patients from a geographically separate cancer center undergoing the same treatment. RESULTS: A total of 138 consecutive patients receiving FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy between 2010 and 2019, constituted the training cohort. Neutrophil/lymphocyte (NLR), monocyte/lymphocyte (MLR), and platelet/lymphocyte ratio (PLR) as well as the systemic inflammatory response index (SIRI) and CA19.9 showed prognostic significance in addition to tumor stage. A pretreatment SIRI score cutoff of 2.35 differentiated between a poor prognostic group with median overall survival (mOS) 5.1 months and a better prognostic group, mOS 12.5 months. SIRI ≤/> 2.35 was predictive of mOS in patients with locally advanced and metastatic PDAC. SIRI was confirmed as a prognostic marker in a validation cohort of 67 patients with mOS of 13.4 months and 6.3 months for those with SIRI ≤ 2.35 and >2.35, respectively. Additional analysis revealed baseline SIRI as being prognostic within additional subgroups of patients in both cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This large, retrospective, analysis of real-world patients receiving first-line FOLFIRINOX chemotherapy for advanced PDAC has identified the pretreatment blood SIRI as a strong prognostic marker for survival. This will allow better counseling of patients with regards to the benefits of treatment, improved stratification within clinical trials, and potentially identify groups of patients for novel therapy trials as first-line treatment.

Inhibition of WEE1 Is Effective in TP53- and RAS-Mutant Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Trial (FOCUS4-C) Comparing Adavosertib (AZD1775) With Active Monitoring.

PURPOSE: Outcomes in RAS-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) remain poor and patients have limited therapeutic options. Adavosertib is the first small-molecule inhibitor of WEE1 kinase. We hypothesized that aberrations in DNA replication seen in mCRC with both RAS and TP53 mutations would sensitize tumors to WEE1 inhibition. METHODS: Patients with newly diagnosed mCRC were registered into FOCUS4 and tested for TP53 and RAS mutations. Those with both mutations who were stable or responding after 16 weeks of chemotherapy were randomly assigned 2:1 between adavosertib and active monitoring (AM). Adavosertib (250 mg or 300 mg) was taken orally once on days 1-5 and days 8-12 of a 3-week cycle. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), with a target hazard ratio (HR) of 0.5 and 80% power with a one-sided 0.025 significance level. RESULTS: FOCUS4-C was conducted between April 2017 and Mar 2020 during which time 718 patients were registered; 247 (34%) were RAS/TP53-mutant. Sixty-nine patients were randomly assigned from 25 UK hospitals (adavosertib = 44; AM = 25). Adavosertib was associated with a PFS improvement over AM (median 3.61 v 1.87 months; HR = 0.35; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.68; P = .0022). Overall survival (OS) was not improved with adavosertib versus AM (median 14.0 v 12.8 months; HR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.44 to 1.94; P = .93). In prespecified subgroup analysis, adavosertib activity was greater in left-sided tumors (HR = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.51), versus right-sided (HR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.41 to 2.56; interaction P = .043). Adavosertib was well-tolerated; grade 3 toxicities were diarrhea (9%), nausea (5%), and neutropenia (7%). CONCLUSION: In this phase II randomized trial, adavosertib improved PFS compared with AM and demonstrates potential as a well-tolerated therapy for RAS/TP53-mutant mCRC. Further testing is required in this sizable population of unmet need.

Capecitabine Versus Active Monitoring in Stable or Responding Metastatic Colorectal Cancer After 16 Weeks of First-Line Therapy: Results of the Randomized FOCUS4-N Trial.

PURPOSE: Despite extensive randomized evidence supporting the use of treatment breaks in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are not universally offered to patients despite improvements in quality of life without detriment to overall survival (OS). FOCUS4-N was set up to explore the impact of oral maintenance therapy in patients who are responding to first-line therapy. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a molecularly stratified trial program that registered patients with newly diagnosed mCRC. The FOCUS4-N trial was offered to patients in whom a targeted subtrial was unavailable or biomarker tests failed. Patients were randomly assigned using a 1:1 ratio between maintenance capecitabine and active monitoring (AM). The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS) with secondary outcomes including OS toxicity and tolerability. RESULTS: Between March 2014 and March 2020, 254 patients were randomly assigned (127 to capecitabine and 127 to AM) across 88 UK sites. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was strong evidence of efficacy for PFS (hazard ratio = 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21 to 0.75; P < .0001), but no significant improvement in OS (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.27; P = .66) was observed. Compliance with treatment was good, and toxicity from capecitabine versus AM was as expected with grade ≥ 2 fatigue (25% v 12%), diarrhea (23% v 13%), and hand-foot syndrome (26% v 3%). Quality of life showed little difference between the groups. CONCLUSION: Despite strong evidence of disease control with maintenance therapy, OS remains unaffected and FOCUS4-N provides additional evidence to support the use of treatment breaks as safe management alternatives for patients who are stable or responding to first-line treatment for mCRC. Capecitabine without bevacizumab may be used to extend PFS in the interval after 16 weeks of first-line therapy.

Feasibility Study on Using Dynamic Contrast Enhanced MRI to Assess the Effect of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Therapy within the STAR Trial of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.

Objective: To identify dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) parameters predictive of early disease progression in patients with metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC) treated with anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). Methods: The study was linked to a phase II/III randomised control trial. Patients underwent DCE-MRI before, at 4- and 10-weeks after initiation of TKI. DCE-MRI parameters at each time-point were derived from a single-compartment tracer kinetic model, following semi-automated tumour segmentation by two independent readers. Primary endpoint was correlation of DCE-MRI parameters with disease progression at 6-months. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated for parameters associated with disease progression at 6 months. Inter-observer agreement was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: 23 tumours in 14 patients were measurable. Three patients had disease progression at 6 months. The percentage (%) change in perfused tumour volume between baseline and 4-week DCE-MRI (p = 0.016), mean transfer constant Ktrans change (p = 0.038), and % change in extracellular volume (p = 0.009) between 4- and 10-week MRI, correlated with early disease progression (AUC 0.879 for each parameter). Inter-observer agreement was excellent for perfused tumour volume, Ktrans and extracellular volume (ICC: 0.928, 0.949, 0.910 respectively). Conclusions: Early measurement of DCE-MRI biomarkers of tumour perfusion at 4- and 10-weeks predicts disease progression at 6-months following TKI therapy in mRCC.

The Incidence of Low Anterior Resection Syndrome as Assessed in an International Randomized Controlled Trial (MRC/NIHR ROLARR).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the incidence of LARS in patients undergoing elective anterior resection within the MRC/NIHR ROLARR trial and to explore perioperative variables that might be associated with major LARS. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Sphincter-preserving rectal cancer surgery is frequently accompanied by defaecatory dysfunction known as Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS). This is distressing for patients and is an unmet clinical challenge. METHODS: An international, retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing anterior resection within the ROLARR trial was undertaken. Trial participants with restoration of gastrointestinal continuity and free from disease recurrence completed the validated LARS questionnaire between August 2015 and April 2017. The primary outcome was the incidence of LARS and secondary outcome was severity (minor versus major). RESULTS: LARS questionnaires were received from 132/155 (85%) eligible patients. The median time from surgery to LARS assessment was 1065 days (range 174-1655 d). The incidence of LARS was 82.6% (n = 109/132), which was minor in 26/132 (19.7%) and major in 83/132 (62.9%). The most common symptoms were incontinence to flatus (n = 86/132; 65.2%) and defaecatory clustering (88/132; 66.7%). In a multivariate model, predictors of major LARS were: 1 cm decrease in tumor height above the anal verge (OR = 1.290, 95% CI: 1.101,1.511); and an ASA grade greater than 1 (OR = 2.920, 95% CI: 1.239, 6.883). Treatment allocation (laparoscopic vs robotic) did not predict major LARS. CONCLUSIONS: LARS is a common after rectal cancer surgery and patients should be appropriately counselled preoperatively, particularly before surgery for low tumors or in comorbid populations.

CONCORDE: A phase I platform study of novel agents in combination with conventional radiotherapy in non-small-cell lung cancer.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for 'gold standard' treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding.

Guidance for the assessment and management of prostate cancer treatment-induced bone loss. A consensus position statement from an expert group.

CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Incidence of prostate cancer (PC) is increasing, but androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and other therapies are substantially improving survival. In this context, careful consideration of skeletal health is required to reduce the risk of treatment-related fragility fractures and their associated morbidity and mortality. This risk is currently not well-managed. ADT causes significant loss of bone mineral density (BMD). In the metastatic setting, systemic treatments (e.g. chemotherapy, abiraterone, enzalutamide) are used alongside ADT and may require concomitant glucocorticoids. Both ADT and glucocorticoids pose significant challenges to skeletal health in a population of patients already likely to have ongoing age-related bone loss and/or comorbid conditions. Current PC guidelines lack specific recommendations for optimising bone health. This guidance presents evidence for assessment and management of bone health in this population, with specific recommendations for clinical practitioners in day-to-day PC management. METHODS: Structured meetings of key opinion leaders were integrated with a systematic literature review. Input and endorsement was sought from patients, nursing representatives and specialist societies. SUMMARY OF GUIDANCE: All men starting or continuing long-term ADT should receive lifestyle advice regarding bone health. Calcium/vitamin D supplementation should be offered if required. Fracture risk should be calculated (using the FRAX® tool), with BMD assessment included where feasible. BMD should always be assessed where fracture risk calculated using FRAX® alone is close to the intervention threshold. Intervention should be provided if indicated by local or national guidelines e.g. UK National Osteoporosis Guideline Group (NOGG) thresholds. Men requiring bone protection therapy should be further assessed (e.g. renal function), with referral to specialist centres if available and offered appropriate treatment to reduce fracture risk. Those near to, but below an intervention threshold, and patients going on to additional systemic therapies (particularly those requiring glucocorticoids), should have FRAX® (including BMD) repeated after 12-18 months. PATIENT SUMMARY: Modern treatments for prostate cancer have led to significant improvements in survival and quality of life. However, some of these treatments may lead to weakening of patient's bones with risk of fracture and it is therefore important to monitor patients' bone health and provide bone protection where needed. This paper provides specific guidance to clinical teams, based on the most recent research evidence, to ensure optimal bone health in their patients.

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

PRISM protocol: a randomised phase II trial of nivolumab in combination with alternatively scheduled ipilimumab in first-line treatment of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy. METHODS: The PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored. DISCUSSION: The combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017). TRIAL STATUS: At the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Intravenous delivery of oncolytic reovirus to brain tumor patients immunologically primes for subsequent checkpoint blockade.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors, including those targeting programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1), are reshaping cancer therapeutic strategies. Evidence suggests, however, that tumor response and patient survival are determined by tumor programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression. We hypothesized that preconditioning of the tumor immune microenvironment using targeted, virus-mediated interferon (IFN) stimulation would up-regulate tumor PD-L1 protein expression and increase cytotoxic T cell infiltration, improving the efficacy of subsequent checkpoint blockade. Oncolytic viruses (OVs) represent a promising form of cancer immunotherapy. For brain tumors, almost all studies to date have used direct intralesional injection of OV, because of the largely untested belief that intravenous administration will not deliver virus to this site. We show, in a window-of-opportunity clinical study, that intravenous infusion of oncolytic human Orthoreovirus (referred to herein as reovirus) leads to infection of tumor cells subsequently resected as part of standard clinical care, both in high-grade glioma and in brain metastases, and increases cytotoxic T cell tumor infiltration relative to patients not treated with virus. We further show that reovirus up-regulates IFN-regulated gene expression, as well as the PD-1/PD-L1 axis in tumors, via an IFN-mediated mechanism. Finally, we show that addition of PD-1 blockade to reovirus enhances systemic therapy in a preclinical glioma model. These results support the development of combined systemic immunovirotherapy strategies for the treatment of both primary and secondary tumors in the brain.

Experiences of establishing an academic early phase clinical trials unit.

BACKGROUND: Early phase trials are essential in drug development, determining appropriate dose levels and assessing preliminary activity. These trials are undertaken by industry and academia, with increasing collaborations between the two. There is pressure to perform these trials quickly, safely, and robustly. However, there are inherent differences between developing and managing early phase, compared to late phase, drug trials. This article describes an approach to establishing an academically led early phase trial portfolio, highlighting lessons learned and sharing experiences. METHODS: In 2009, the University of Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit became the Clinical Trials Coordinating Office for Myeloma UK's phase I and II trials. We embarked on a transition from working extensively in phase III to early phase trials development and conduct. This involved evaluating and revising our well-established standard operating procedures, visiting other academic early phase units, and developing essential new documentation and processes. RESULTS: A core team of trial and data managers and statisticians was established to facilitate expertise and knowledge retention. A detailed training plan was implemented focussing on essential standard practices for early phase. These included pharmacovigilance, recruitment, trial design and set-up, data and site monitoring, and oversight committees. Training in statistical methods for early phase trials was incorporated. CONCLUSION: Initial scoping of early phase trial management and conduct was essential in establishing this early phase portfolio. Many of the processes developed were successful. However, regular review and evaluation were implemented to enable changes and ensure efficiencies. It is recommended that others embarking on this venture build on the experiences described in this article.

Responding to Acute Care Needs of Patients With Cancer: Recent Trends Across Continents.

Remarkable progress has been made over the past decade in cancer medicine. Personalized medicine, driven by biomarker predictive factors, novel biotherapy, novel imaging, and molecular targeted therapeutics, has improved outcomes. Cancer is becoming a chronic disease rather than a fatal disease for many patients. However, despite this progress, there is much work to do if patients are to receive continuous high-quality care in the appropriate place, at the appropriate time, and with the right specialized expert oversight. Unfortunately, the rapid expansion of therapeutic options has also generated an ever-increasing burden of emergency care and encroaches into end-of-life palliative care. Emergency presentation is a common consequence of cancer and of cancer treatment complications. It represents an important proportion of new presentations of previously undiagnosed malignancy. In the U.K. alone, 20%-25% of new cancer diagnoses are made following an initial presentation to the hospital emergency department, with a greater proportion in patients older than 70 years. This late presentation accounts for poor survival outcomes and is often associated with poor patient experience and poorly coordinated care. The recent development of acute oncology services in the U.K. aims to improve patient safety, quality of care, and the coordination of care for all patients with cancer who require emergency access to care, irrespective of the place of care and admission route. Furthermore, prompt management coordinated by expert teams and access to protocol-driven pathways have the potential to improve patient experience and drive efficiency when services are fully established. The challenge to leaders of acute oncology services is to develop bespoke models of care, appropriate to local services, but with an opportunity for acute oncology teams to engage cancer care strategies and influence cancer care and delivery in the future. This will aid the integration of highly specialized cancer treatment with high-quality care close to home and help avoid hospital admission.