Lentiviral Gene Therapy for Artemis-Deficient SCID.

BACKGROUND: The DNA-repair enzyme Artemis is essential for rearrangement of T- and B-cell receptors. Mutations in DCLRE1C, which encodes Artemis, cause Artemis-deficient severe combined immunodeficiency (ART-SCID), which is poorly responsive to allogeneic hematopoietic-cell transplantation. METHODS: We carried out a phase 1-2 clinical study of the transfusion of autologous CD34+ cells, transfected with a lentiviral vector containing DCLRE1C, in 10 infants with newly diagnosed ART-SCID. We followed them for a median of 31.2 months. RESULTS: Marrow harvest, busulfan conditioning, and lentiviral-transduced CD34+ cell infusion produced the expected grade 3 or 4 adverse events. All the procedures met prespecified criteria for feasibility at 42 days after infusion. Gene-marked T cells were detected at 6 to 16 weeks after infusion in all the patients. Five of 6 patients who were followed for at least 24 months had T-cell immune reconstitution at a median of 12 months. The diversity of T-cell receptor ß chains normalized by 6 to 12 months. Four patients who were followed for at least 24 months had sufficient B-cell numbers, IgM concentration, or IgM isohemagglutinin titers to permit discontinuation of IgG infusions. Three of these 4 patients had normal immunization responses, and the fourth has started immunizations. Vector insertion sites showed no evidence of clonal expansion. One patient who presented with cytomegalovirus infection received a second infusion of gene-corrected cells to achieve T-cell immunity sufficient for viral clearance. Autoimmune hemolytic anemia developed in 4 patients 4 to 11 months after infusion; this condition resolved after reconstitution of T-cell immunity. All 10 patients were healthy at the time of this report. CONCLUSIONS: Infusion of lentiviral gene-corrected autologous CD34+ cells, preceded by pharmacologically targeted low-exposure busulfan, in infants with newly diagnosed ART-SCID resulted in genetically corrected and functional T and B cells. (Funded by the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03538899.).

Adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy for the treatment of localised and locally advanced prostate cancer: a prospectively planned systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear whether adjuvant or early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy is more appropriate for men who present with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We aimed to prospectively plan a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing these radiotherapy approaches. METHODS: We used a prospective framework for adaptive meta-analysis (FAME), starting the review process while eligible trials were ongoing. RCTs were eligible if they aimed to compare immediate adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy, following radical prostatectomy in men (age ≥18 years) with intermediate-risk or high-risk, localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. We searched trial registers and conference proceedings until July 8, 2020, to identify eligible RCTs. By establishing the ARTISTIC collaboration with relevant trialists, we were able to anticipate when eligible trial results would emerge, and we developed and registered a protocol with PROSPERO before knowledge of the trial results (CRD42019132669). We used a harmonised definition of event-free survival, as the time from randomisation until the first evidence of either biochemical progression (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] ≥0·4 ng/mL and rising after completion of any postoperative radiotherapy), clinical or radiological progression, initiation of a non-trial treatment, death from prostate cancer, or a PSA level of at least 2·0 ng/mL at any time after randomisation. We predicted when we would have sufficient power to assess whether adjuvant radiotherapy was superior to early salvage radiotherapy. Investigators supplied results for event-free survival, both overall and within predefined patient subgroups. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the effects of radiotherapy timing on event-free survival and subgroup interactions were combined using fixed-effect meta-analysis. FINDINGS: We identified three eligible trials and were able to obtain updated results for event-free survival for 2153 patients recruited between November, 2007, and December, 2016. Median follow-up ranged from 60 months to 78 months, with a maximum follow-up of 132 months. 1075 patients were randomly assigned to receive adjuvant radiotherapy and 1078 to a policy of early salvage radiotherapy, of whom 421 (39·1%) had commenced treatment at the time of analysis. Patient characteristics were balanced within trials and overall. Median age was similar between trials at 64 or 65 years (with IQRs ranging from 59 to 68 years) across the three trials and most patients (1671 [77·6%]) had a Gleason score of 7. All trials were assessed as having low risk of bias. Based on 270 events, the meta-analysis showed no evidence that event-free survival was improved with adjuvant radiotherapy compared with early salvage radiotherapy (HR 0·95, 95% CI 0·75-1·21; p=0·70), with only a 1 percentage point (95% CI -2 to 3) change in 5-year event-free survival (89% vs 88%). Results were consistent across trials (heterogeneity p=0·18; I2=42%). INTERPRETATION: This collaborative and prospectively designed systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that adjuvant radiotherapy does not improve event-free survival in men with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer. Until data on long-term outcomes are available, early salvage treatment would seem the preferable treatment policy as it offers the opportunity to spare many men radiotherapy and its associated side-effects. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council.

Adjuvant radiotherapy versus early salvage radiotherapy following radical prostatectomy (TROG 08.03/ANZUP RAVES): a randomised, controlled, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant radiotherapy has been shown to halve the risk of biochemical progression for patients with high-risk disease after radical prostatectomy. Early salvage radiotherapy could result in similar biochemical control with lower treatment toxicity. We aimed to compare biochemical progression between patients given adjuvant radiotherapy and those given salvage radiotherapy. METHODS: We did a phase 3, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial across 32 oncology centres in Australia and New Zealand. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years and had undergone a radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with pathological staging showing high-risk features defined as positive surgical margins, extraprostatic extension, or seminal vesicle invasion; had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and had a postoperative prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration of 0·10 ng/mL or less. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation technique via an internet-based, independently generated allocation to either adjuvant radiotherapy within 6 months of radical prostatectomy or early salvage radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. Allocation sequence was concealed from investigators and patients, but treatment assignment for individual randomisations was not masked. Patients were stratified by radiotherapy centre, preoperative PSA, Gleason score, surgical margin status, and seminal vesicle invasion status. Radiotherapy in both groups was 64 Gy in 32 fractions to the prostate bed without androgen deprivation therapy with real-time review of plan quality on all cases before treatment. The primary endpoint was freedom from biochemical progression. Salvage radiotherapy would be deemed non-inferior to adjuvant radiotherapy if freedom from biochemical progression at 5 years was within 10% of that for adjuvant radiotherapy with a hazard ratio (HR) for salvage radiotherapy versus adjuvant radiotherapy of 1·48. The primary analysis was done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00860652. FINDINGS: Between March 27, 2009, and Dec 31, 2015, 333 patients were randomly assigned (166 to adjuvant radiotherapy; 167 to salvage radiotherapy). Median follow-up was 6·1 years (IQR 4·3-7·5). An independent data monitoring committee recommended premature closure of enrolment because of unexpectedly low event rates. 84 (50%) patients in the salvage radiotherapy group had radiotherapy triggered by a PSA of 0·20 ng/mL or more. 5-year freedom from biochemical progression was 86% (95% CI 81-92) in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 87% (82-93) in the salvage radiotherapy group (stratified HR 1·12, 95% CI 0·65-1·90; pnon-inferiority=0·15). The grade 2 or worse genitourinary toxicity rate was lower in the salvage radiotherapy group (90 [54%] of 167) than in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (116 [70%] of 166). The grade 2 or worse gastrointestinal toxicity rate was similar between the salvage radiotherapy group (16 [10%]) and the adjuvant radiotherapy group (24 [14%]). INTERPRETATION: Salvage radiotherapy did not meet trial specified criteria for non-inferiority. However, these data support the use of salvage radiotherapy as it results in similar biochemical control to adjuvant radiotherapy, spares around half of men from pelvic radiation, and is associated with significantly lower genitourinary toxicity. FUNDING: New Zealand Health Research Council, Australian National Health Medical Research Council, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council NSW, Auckland Hospital Charitable Trust, Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group Seed Funding, Cancer Research Trust New Zealand, Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, Cancer Institute NSW, Prostate Cancer Foundation Australia, and Cancer Australia.

Contour variation is a primary source of error when delivering post prostatectomy radiotherapy: Results of the Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03 Radiotherapy Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) benchmarking exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in target volume delineation from clinical trial protocols has been shown to contribute to poorer patient outcomes. A clinical trial quality assurance framework can support compliance with trial protocol. Results of the TROG 08.03 RAVES benchmarking exercise considering variation from protocol, inter-observer variability and impact on dosimetry are reported in this paper. METHODS: Clinicians were required to contour and plan a benchmarking case according to trial protocol. Geometric pjmirometers including volume, Hausdorff Distance, Mean Distance to Agreement and DICE similarity coefficient were analysed for targets and organs at risk. Submitted volumes were compared to a STAPLE and consensus 'reference' volume for each structure. Dosimetric analysis was performed using dose volume histogram data. RESULTS: Benchmarking exercise submissions were received from 96 clinicians. In total 205 protocol variations were identified. The most common variation was inadequate contouring of the CTV in 84/205 (41%). The CTV volume ranged from 65.3 to 193.1 cm3 with a median of 113.2 cm3 . The most common dosimetric protocol variation related to rectal dosimetry. The mean submitted rectal volume receiving 40 Gy and 60 Gy, respectively, was 56.14% ± 5.55% and 30.25% ± 6.15%. When corrected to the protocol defined length the mean rectal volume receiving 40 Gy was 60.8% ± 7.92%, while the volume receiving 60 Gy was 33.86% ± 8.21%. CONCLUSION: Variations from protocol were found in the RAVES benchmarking exercise, most notably in CTV and rectum delineation. Inter-observer variability was evident. Incorrect delineation of the rectum impacted on dosimetric compliance with protocol.

Optimizing Radiation Therapy Quality Assurance in Clinical Trials: A TROG 08.03 RAVES Substudy.

PURPOSE: To explore site- and clinician-level factors associated with protocol violations requiring real-time-review (RTR) resubmission in a multicenter clinical trial to help tailor future quality assurance (QA) protocols. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RAVES (Radiation Therapy-Adjuvant vs Early Salvage) (Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 08.03) is a randomized trial comparing adjuvant with early salvage radiation therapy in men with positive surgical margins or pT3 disease after prostatectomy. Quality assurance in RAVES required each clinician and site to submit a credentialing dummy run (DR) and for each patient's radiation therapy plan to undergo external RTR before treatment. Prospectively defined major violations from trial protocol required remedy and resubmission. Site and clinician factors associated with RTR resubmission were examined using hierarchical modeling. RESULTS: Data were collected from 171 consecutive patients, treated by 46 clinicians at 32 hospitals. There were 47 RTR resubmissions (27%) due to 65 major violations. The relative rate of resubmission decreased by 29% per year as the study progressed (odds ratio OR. 0.71, P=.02). The majority of resubmissions were due to contouring violations (39 of 65) and dosimetric violations (22 of 65). For each additional patient accrued, significant decreases in RTR resubmission were seen at both clinician level (OR 0.75, P=.02) and site level (OR 0.72, P=.01). The rate of resubmission due to dosimetric violations was only 1.6% after the first 5 patients. Use of IMRT was associated with lower rates of resubmission compared with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (OR 0.38, P=.05). CONCLUSION: Several low- and high-risk factors that may assist with tailoring future clinical trial QA were identified. Because the real-time resubmission rate was largely independent of the credentialing exercise, some form of RTR QA is recommended. The greatest benefit from QA was derived early in trial activation and clinician experience.

A Phase III trial to investigate the timing of radiotherapy for prostate cancer with high-risk features: background and rationale of the Radiotherapy -- Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that observation with early salvage radiotherapy (SRT) is not inferior to 'standard' treatment with adjuvant RT (ART) with respect to biochemical failure in patients with pT3 disease and/or positive surgical margins (SMs) after radical prostatectomy (RP). To compare the following secondary endpoints between the two arms: patient-reported outcomes, adverse events, biochemical failure-free survival, overall survival, disease-specific survival, time to distant failure, time to local failure, cost utility analysis, quality adjusted life years and time to androgen deprivation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The Radiotherapy - Adjuvant Versus Early Salvage (RAVES) trial is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial led by the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG), in collaboration with the Urological Society of Australia and New Zealand (USANZ), and the Australian and New Zealand Urogenital and Prostate Cancer Trials Group (ANZUP). In all, 470 patients are planned to be randomised 1:1 to either ART commenced at ≤4 months of RP (standard of care) or close observation with early SRT triggered by a PSA level of >0.20 ng/mL (experimental arm). Eligible patients have had a RP for adenocarcinoma of the prostate with at least one of the following risk factors: positive SMs ± extraprostatic extension ± seminal vesicle involvement. The postoperative PSA level must be ≤0.10 ng/mL. Rigorous investigator credentialing and a quality assurance programme are designed to promote consistent RT delivery among patients. RESULTS: Trial is currently underway, with 258 patients randomised as of 31 October 2013. International collaborations have developed, including a planned meta-analysis to be undertaken with the UK Medical Research Council/National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group RADICALS (Radiotherapy and Androgen Deprivation In Combination with Local Surgery) trial and an innovative psycho-oncology sub-study to investigate a patient decision aid resource. CONCLUSION: On the current evidence available, it remains unclear if ART is equivalent or superior to observation with early SRT.

Phase 3 trial of domiciliary humidification to mitigate acute mucosal toxicity during radiation therapy for head-and-neck cancer: first report of Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 07.03 RadioHUM study.

PURPOSE: To assess the impact of domicile-based humidification on symptom burden during radiation therapy (RT) for head-and-neck (H&N) cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: From June 2007 through June 2011, 210 patients with H&N cancer receiving RT were randomized to either a control arm or to receive humidification using the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare MR880 humidifier. Humidification commenced on day 1 of RT and continued until Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), version 3.0, clinical mucositis (CMuc) grade ≤1 occurred. Forty-three patients (42%) met a defined benchmark for humidification compliance and contributed to per protocol (PP) analysis. Acute toxicities, hospitalizations, and feeding tube events were recorded prospectively. The McMaster University Head and Neck Radiotherapy Questionnaire (HNRQ) was used for patient-reported outcomes. The primary endpoint was area under the curve (AUC) for CMuc grade ≥2. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in AUC for CMuc ≥2 between the 2 arms. Humidification patients had significantly fewer days in hospital (P=.017). In compliant PP patients, the AUC for CTCAE functional mucositis score (FMuc) ≥2 was significantly reduced (P=.009), and the proportion who never required a feeding tube was significantly greater (P=.04). HNRQ PP analysis estimates also in the direction favoring humidification with less symptom severity, although differences at most time points did not reach significance. CONCLUSIONS: TROG 07.03 has provided efficacy signals consistent with a role for humidification in reducing symptom burden from mucositis, but the influence of humidification compliance on the results moderates recommendations regarding its practical utility.