Transdermal Blood Sampling for C-Peptide Is a Minimally Invasive, Reliable Alternative to Venous Sampling in Children and Adults With Type 1 Diabetes.

OBJECTIVE: C-peptide and islet autoantibodies are key type 1 diabetes biomarkers, typically requiring venous sampling, which limits their utility. We assessed transdermal capillary blood (TCB) collection as a practical alternative. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Ninety-one individuals (71 with type 1 diabetes, 20 control; individuals with type 1 diabetes: aged median 14.8 years [interquartile range (IQR) 9.1-17.1], diabetes duration 4.0 years [1.5-7.7]; control individuals: 42.2 years [38.0-52.1]) underwent contemporaneous venous and TCB sampling for measurement of plasma C-peptide. Participants with type 1 diabetes also provided venous serum and plasma, and TCB plasma for measurement of autoantibodies to glutamate decarboxylase, islet antigen-2, and zinc transporter 8. The ability of TCB plasma to detect significant endogenous insulin secretion (venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L) was compared along with agreement in levels, using Bland-Altman. Venous serum was compared with venous and TCB plasma for detection of autoantibodies, using established thresholds. Acceptability was assessed by age-appropriate questionnaire. RESULTS: Transdermal sampling took a mean of 2.35 min (SD 1.49). Median sample volume was 50 µL (IQR 40-50) with 3 of 91 (3.3%) failures, and 13 of 88 (14.7%) <35 µL. TCB C-peptide showed good agreement with venous plasma (mean venous ln[C-peptide] - TCB ln[C-peptide] = 0.008, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], with 100% [36 of 36] sensitivity/100% [50 of 50] specificity to detect venous C-peptide ≥200 pmol/L). Where venous serum in multiple autoantibody positive TCB plasma agreed in 22 of 32 (sensitivity 69%), comparative specificity was 35 of 36 (97%). TCB was preferred to venous sampling (type 1 diabetes: 63% vs. 7%; 30% undecided). CONCLUSIONS: Transdermal capillary testing for C-peptide is a sensitive, specific, and acceptable alternative to venous sampling; TCB sampling for islet autoantibodies needs further assessment.

Interleukin-2 Therapy of Autoimmunity in Diabetes (ITAD): a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

Type 1 diabetes is a common autoimmune disease due to destruction of pancreatic ß cells, resulting in lifelong need for insulin. Evidence suggest that maintaining residual ß-cell function can improve glucose control and reduce risk of hypoglycaemia and vascular complications. Non-clinical, preclinical and some preliminary clinical data suggest that low-dose interleukin-2 (IL-2) therapy could block pancreatic ß cells destruction by increasing the number of functional regulatory T cells (Tregs) that inhibit islet-specific autoreactive effector T cells (Teffs). However, there is lack of data on the effect of low-dose IL-2 in newly diagnosed children and adolescents with T1D as well as lack of specific data on its potential effect on ß-cell function. The ' Interleukin-2 Therapy of Autoimmunity in Diabetes (ITAD)' is a phase 2, multicentre, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial in children and adolescents (6-18 years; having detectable C-peptide) initiated within 6 weeks of T1D diagnosis. A total of 45 participants will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio to receive either ultra-low dose IL-2 (aldesleukin), at a dose of 0.2 x 10 6 IU/m 2 twice-weekly, given subcutaneously, or placebo, for 6 months. The primary objective is to assess the effects of ultra-low dose aldesleukin administration on endogenous ß-cell function as measured by frequent home dried blood spot (DBS) fasting and post-prandial C-peptide in children and adolescents with newly diagnosed T1D. The secondary objectives are: 1) to assess the efficacy of regular dosing of aldesleukin in increasing Treg levels; 2) to confirm the clinical safety and tolerability of ultra-low dose aldesleukin; 3) to assess changes in the immune system indicating benefit or potential risk for future gains/loss in ß-cell function and immune function; 4) to assess treatment effect on glycaemic control. Trial registration: EudraCT 2017-002126-20 (06/02/2019).

3 versus 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination therapy for colorectal cancer (SCOT): an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: 6 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is usually given as adjuvant treatment for stage 3 colorectal cancer. We investigated whether 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy would be non-inferior to the usual 6 months of treatment. METHODS: The SCOT study was an international, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial done at 244 centres. Patients aged 18 years or older with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer underwent central randomisation with minimisation for centre, choice of regimen, sex, disease site, N stage, T stage, and the starting dose of capecitabine. Patients were assigned (1:1) to receive 3 months or 6 months of adjuvant oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy. The chemotherapy regimens could consist of CAPOX (capecitabine and oxaliplatin) or FOLFOX (bolus and infused fluorouracil with oxaliplatin). The regimen was selected before randomisation in accordance with choices of the patient and treating physician. The primary study endpoint was disease-free survival and the non-inferiority margin was a hazard ratio of 1·13. The primary analysis was done in the intention-to-treat population and safety was assessed in patients who started study treatment. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN59757862, and follow-up is continuing. FINDINGS: 6088 patients underwent randomisation between March 27, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013. The intended treatment was FOLFOX in 1981 patients and CAPOX in 4107 patients. 3044 patients were assigned to 3 month group and 3044 were assigned to 6 month group. Nine patients in the 3 month group and 14 patients in the 6 month group did not consent for their data to be used, leaving 3035 patients in the 3 month group and 3030 patients in the 6 month group for the intention-to-treat analyses. At the cutoff date for analysis, there had been 1482 disease-free survival events, with 740 in the 3 month group and 742 in the 6 month group. 3 year disease-free survival was 76·7% (95% CI 75·1-78·2) for the 3 month group and 77·1% (75·6-78·6) for the 6 month group, giving a hazard ratio of 1·006 (0·909-1·114, test for non-inferiority p=0·012), significantly below the non-inferiority margin. Peripheral neuropathy of grade 2 or worse was more common in the 6 month group (237 [58%] of 409 patients for the subset with safety data) than in the 3 month group (103 [25%] of 420) and was long-lasting and associated with worse quality of life. 1098 serious adverse events were reported (492 reports in the 3 month group and 606 reports in the 6 month group) and 32 treatment-related deaths occurred (16 in each group). INTERPRETATION: In the whole study population, 3 months of oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy was non-inferior to 6 months of the same therapy for patients with high-risk stage II and stage III colorectal cancer and was associated with reduced toxicity and improved quality of life. Despite the fact the study was underpowered, these data suggest that a shorter duration leads to similar survival outcomes with better quality of life and thus might represent a new standard of care. FUNDING: Medical Research Council, Swedish Cancer Society, NETSCC, and Cancer Research UK.

Adjuvant capecitabine plus bevacizumab versus capecitabine alone in patients with colorectal cancer (QUASAR 2): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Antiangiogenic agents have established efficacy in the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. We investigated whether bevacizumab could improve disease-free survival in the adjuvant setting after resection of the primary tumour. METHODS: For the open-label, randomised, controlled QUASAR 2 trial, which was done at 170 hospitals in seven countries, we recruited patients aged 18 years or older with WHO performance status scores of 0 or 1 who had undergone potentially curative surgery for histologically proven stage III or high-risk stage II colorectal cancer. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive eight 3-week cycles of oral capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 twice daily for 14 days followed by a break for 7 days) or the same regimen of oral capecitabine plus 16 cycles of 7·5 mg/kg bevacizumab by intravenous infusion over 90 min on day 1 of each cycle. Randomisation was done by a computer-generated schedule with use of minimisation with a random element stratified by age, disease stage, tumour site, and country. The study was open label and no-one was masked to treatment assignment. The primary endpoint was 3-year disease-free survival, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Toxic effects were assessed in patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45133151. FINDINGS: Between April 25, 2005, and Oct 12, 2010, 1952 eligible patients were enrolled, of whom 1941 had assessable data (968 in the capecitabine alone group and 973 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group). Median follow-up was 4·92 years (IQR 4·00-5·16). Disease-free survival at 3 years did not differ between the groups (75·4%, 95% CI 72·5-78·0 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group vs 78·4%, 75·7-80·9 in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·89-1·25, p=0·54). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were hand-foot syndrome (201 [21%] of 963 in the capecitabine alone group vs 257 [27%] of 959 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group) and diarrhoea (102 [11%] vs 104 [11%]), and, with the addition of bevacizumab, expected increases were recorded in all-grade hypertension (320 [33%] vs 75 [8%]), proteinuria (197 [21%] vs 49 [5%]), and wound healing problems (30 [3%] vs 17 [2%]). 571 serious adverse events were reported (221 with capecitabine alone and 350 with capecitabine and bevacizumab). Most of these were gastrointestinal (n=245) or cardiovascular (n=169). 23 deaths within 6 months of randomisation were classified as being related to treatment, eight in the capecitabine alone group and 15 in the capecitabine and bevacizumab group. INTERPRETATION: The addition of bevacizumab to capecitabine in the adjuvant setting for colorectal cancer yielded no benefit in the treatment of an unselected population and should not be used. FUNDING: Roche.

A candidate gene study of capecitabine-related toxicity in colorectal cancer identifies new toxicity variants at DPYD and a putative role for ENOSF1 rather than TYMS.

OBJECTIVE: Capecitabine is an oral 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) pro-drug commonly used to treat colorectal carcinoma and other tumours. About 35% of patients experience dose-limiting toxicity. The few proven genetic biomarkers of 5-FU toxicity are rare variants and polymorphisms, respectively, at candidate loci dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPYD) and thymidylate synthase (TYMS). DESIGN: We investigated 1456 polymorphisms and rare coding variants near 25 candidate 5-FU pathway genes in 968 UK patients from the QUASAR2 clinical trial. RESULTS: We identified the first common DPYD polymorphisms to be consistently associated with capecitabine toxicity, rs12132152 (toxicity allele frequency (TAF)=0.031, OR=3.83, p=4.31×10(-6)) and rs12022243 (TAF=0.196, OR=1.69, p=2.55×10(-5)). rs12132152 was particularly strongly associated with hand-foot syndrome (OR=6.1, p=3.6×10(-8)). The rs12132152 and rs12022243 associations were independent of each other and of previously reported DPYD toxicity variants. Next-generation sequencing additionally identified rare DPYD variant p.Ala551Thr in one patient with severe toxicity. Using functional predictions and published data, we assigned p.Ala551Thr as causal for toxicity. We found that polymorphism rs2612091, which lies within an intron of ENOSF1, was also associated with capecitabine toxicity (TAF=0.532, OR=1.59, p=5.28×10(-6)). ENSOF1 is adjacent to TYMS and there is a poorly characterised regulatory interaction between the two genes/proteins. Unexpectedly, rs2612091 fully explained the previously reported associations between capecitabine toxicity and the supposedly functional TYMS variants, 5'VNTR 2R/3R and 3'UTR 6 bp ins-del. rs2612091 genotypes were, moreover, consistently associated with ENOSF1 mRNA levels, but not with TYMS expression. CONCLUSIONS: DPYD harbours rare and common capecitabine toxicity variants. The toxicity polymorphism in the TYMS region may actually act through ENOSF1.

Genetic markers of toxicity from capecitabine and other fluorouracil-based regimens: investigation in the QUASAR2 study, systematic review, and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Fluourouracil (FU) is a mainstay of chemotherapy, although toxicities are common. Genetic biomarkers have been used to predict these adverse events, but their utility is uncertain. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We tested candidate polymorphisms identified from a systematic literature search for associations with capecitabine toxicity in 927 patients with colorectal cancer in the Quick and Simple and Reliable trial (QUASAR2). We then performed meta-analysis of QUASAR2 and 16 published studies (n = 4,855 patients) to examine the polymorphisms in various FU monotherapy and combination therapy regimens. RESULTS: Global capecitabine toxicity (grades 0/1/2 v grades 3/4/5) was associated with the rare, functional DPYD alleles 2846T>A and *2A (combined odds ratio, 5.51; P = .0013) and with the common TYMS polymorphisms 5'VNTR2R/3R and 3'UTR 6bp ins-del (combined odds ratio, 1.31; P = 9.4 × 10(-6)). There was weaker evidence that these polymorphisms predict toxicity from bolus and infusional FU monotherapy. No good evidence of association with toxicity was found for the remaining polymorphisms, including several currently included in predictive kits. No polymorphisms were associated with toxicity in combination regimens. CONCLUSION: A panel of genetic biomarkers for capecitabine monotherapy toxicity would currently comprise only the four DPYD and TYMS variants above. We estimate this test could provide 26% sensitivity, 86% specificity, and 49% positive predictive value-better than most available commercial kits, but suboptimal for clinical use. The test panel might be extended to include additional, rare DPYD variants functionally equivalent to *2A and 2846A, though insufficient evidence supports its use in bolus, infusional, or combination FU. There remains a need to identify further markers of FU toxicity for all regimens.