Search

Tailored recommendation for adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients is of great importance. This survey assessed agreement among oncologists on risk assessment and chemotherapy recommendation, the impact of adding the 70-gene signature to clinical-pathological characteristics, and changes over time. A survey consisting of 37 discordant patient cases from the MINDACT trial (T1-3N0-1M0) was sent to European breast cancer specialists for assessment of risk (high or low) and chemotherapy administration (yes or no). In 2015 the survey was sent twice (survey 1 and 2), several weeks apart, and in 2021 a third time (survey 3). Only the second and third surveys included the 70-gene signature result. 41 breast cancer specialists participated in all three surveys. Overall agreement between respondents decreased slightly between survey 1 and 2, but increased again in survey 3. Over time there was an increase in agreement with the 70-gene signature result on risk assessment, 23% in survey 2 versus 1 and 11% in survey 3 versus 2. With information available indicating a low risk 70-gene signature (n = 25 cases), 20% of risk assessments changed from high to low and 19% of recommendations changed from yes to no chemotherapy in survey 2 versus 1, further increasing with 18% and 21%, respectively, in survey 3 versus 2. There is a variability in risk assessment of early breast cancer patients among breast cancer specialists. The 70-gene signature provided valuable information, resulting in fewer patients being assessed as high risk and fewer recommendations for chemotherapy, increasing over time. • Risk assessment of early breast cancer patients varies among breast specialists. • The 70-gene signature provides valuable information for risk assessment. • Information on the 70-gene signature resulted in fewer high risk assessments. • Information on the 70-gene signature resulted in fewer chemotherapy recommendations. • Agreement with the 70-gene signature result increased over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In Europe, most of the cancer clinical research dedicated to therapeutic innovations aims primarily at regulatory approval. Once an anticancer drug enters the common market, each member state determines its real-world use based on its own criteria: pricing, reimbursement and clinical indications. Such an innovation-centred clinical research landscape might neglect patient-relevant issues in real-world setting, such as comparative effectiveness of distinct treatment options or long-term safety monitoring. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) advocates reforming the current ‘innovation-centred’ system to a truly ‘patient-centred’ paradigm with systematically coordinated applied clinical research in conjunction with drug development, featuring the following strategy: (1) An interconnected partnership among key-stakeholders involved in the care delivery system, namely patients, health professionals, academia, pharmaceutical industry, regulators, payers and policy-makers, to optimise the transition from research to clinical practice and vice versa; (2) An independent research infrastructure host and coordination ensuring independent, high quality and sustainable research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The past three decades have seen rapid improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of most cancers and the most important contributor has been research. Progress in rare cancers has been slower, not least because of the challenges of undertaking research. Settings The International Rare Cancers Initiative (IRCI) is a partnership which aims to stimulate and facilitate the development of international clinical trials for patients with rare cancers. It is focused on interventional – usually randomised – clinical trials with the clear goal of improving outcomes for patients. The key challenges are organisational and methodological. A multi-disciplinary workshop to review the methods used in ICRI portfolio trials was held in Amsterdam in September 2013. Other as-yet unrealised methods were also discussed. Results The IRCI trials are each presented to exemplify possible approaches to designing credible trials in rare cancers. Researchers may consider these for use in future trials and understand the choices made for each design. Interpretation Trials can be designed using a wide array of possibilities. There is no ‘one size fits all’ solution. In order to make progress in the rare diseases, decisions to change practice will have to be based on less direct evidence from clinical trials than in more common diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The emergence of the precision medicine paradigm in oncology has led to increasing interest in the integration of real-world data (RWD) into cancer clinical research. As sources of real-world evidence (RWE), such data could potentially help address the uncertainties that surround the adoption of novel anticancer therapies into the clinic following their investigation in clinical trials. At present, RWE-generating studies which investigate antitumour interventions seem to primarily focus on collecting and analysing observational RWD, typically forgoing the use of randomisation despite its methodological benefits. This is appropriate in situations where randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are not feasible and non-randomised RWD analyses can offer valuable insights. Nevertheless, depending on how they are designed, RCTs have the potential to produce strong and actionable RWE themselves. The choice of which methodology to employ for RWD studies should be guided by the nature of the research question they are intended to answer. Here, we attempt to define some of the questions that do not necessarily require the conduct of RCTs. Moreover, we outline the strategy of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) to contribute to the generation of robust and high-quality RWE by prioritising the execution of pragmatic trials and studies set up according to the trials-within-cohorts approach. If treatment allocation cannot be left up to random chance due to practical or ethical concerns, the EORTC will consider undertaking observational RWD research based on the target trial principle. New EORTC-sponsored RCTs may also feature concurrent prospective cohorts composed of off-trial patients. • The role of real-world data (RWD) in cancer clinical research is increasing. • A false dichotomy exists between RWD studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). • There are different methodologies for RWD studies, including RCT designs. • The methodology to be employed should be determined by the research question. • We outline the RWD strategy of a large academic clinical cancer research organisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective This phase I study assessed the pharmacokinetic (PK), tolerability, safety and preliminary clinical activity of tamoxifen (T) and lapatinib (L) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Methods Patients (pts) with hormone receptor positive MBC, irrespective of HER-2 status, were randomly assigned to T → T + L group, tamoxifen in cycle 1 for 28 days then adding lapatinib on day 1 of cycle 2; or L → T + L group, lapatinib in cycle 1 for 14 days, then adding tamoxifen on day 1 of cycle 2 to evaluate the potential drug–drug PK interaction at steady-state. The dose of tamoxifen was 20 mg/day and lapatinib 1500 mg/day. Results Twenty-five pts were enrolled of which 23 started treatment, five (22%) of them were HER-2 positive. Median age was 59 years and 96% had PS ≤1. Eleven (91.7%) pts in the T → T + L group and 10 (76.9%) in L → T + L group received at least 2 cycles of treatment. The most frequently reported drug-related adverse events (>25% of patients) were diarrhoea (62%), anaemia (56%), rash (52%), fatigue (52%), dermatology other (34%) and leukopenia (28%). Grade 3–4 drug-related toxicities were infrequent (<10%). No cardiotoxicity was observed. T plasma concentrations did not appeared to be affected by the presence of lapatinib. L steady-state plasma concentrations were 20% lower after 28 days of co-administration with T. Eight (36.4%) patients experienced stable disease and median progression free survival was 2.7 months. Conclusions The combination of L and T was safe and clinically active. T affected L plasma concentrations, which remained within the therapeutic index. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EORTC Breast Cancer Group (BCG), created in 1962, is a multidisciplinary group involving surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, basic scientists, and clinical research fellows. Currently, more than 80 member's institutions across Europe are participating in the group studies. The main goal of the BCG is to conduct high-quality international clinical trials covering all areas of breast cancer care: from loco-regional to systemic disease control, and from in situ carcinoma to metastatic disease. Over 50 years, the BCG has performed dozens of clinical studies including several thousands of patients. Many practice-changing trials and major achievements were conducted optimizing local control, improving systemic therapy in early and metastatic breast cancer, pioneering work in clinical-translational trials and collaboration within intergroup trials. The strategic plan of the BCG for future research includes three distinct albeit overlapping areas: loco-regional therapy, (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy, trials in the metastatic setting, and niche population studies. For each of these areas the group has considered the prevailing EORTC strategy of focusing on practice-changing studies and translational research, with an emphasis on niche trials. During five decades, the BCG has successfully performed a series of practice-changing trials enrolling several thousands of patients. These studies have contributed to the clinical knowledge on the treatment of breast cancer and have influenced clinical practice and breast cancer patients' outcome worldwide. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The EORTC Breast Cancer Group (BCG), created in 1962, is a multidisciplinary group involving surgeons, medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, pathologists, basic scientists, and clinical research fellows. Currently, more than 80 member''s institutions across Europe are participating in the group studies. The main goal of the BCG is to conduct high-quality international clinical trials covering all areas of breast cancer care: from loco-regional to systemic disease control, and from in situ carcinoma to metastatic disease. Over 50 years, the BCG has performed dozens of clinical studies including several thousands of patients. Many practice-changing trials and major achievements were conducted optimizing local control, improving systemic therapy in early and metastatic breast cancer, pioneering work in clinical-translational trials and collaboration within intergroup trials. The strategic plan of the BCG for future research includes three distinct albeit overlapping areas: loco-regional therapy, (neo-)adjuvant systemic therapy, trials in the metastatic setting, and niche population studies. For each of these areas the group has considered the prevailing EORTC strategy of focusing on practice-changing studies and translational research, with an emphasis on niche trials. During five decades, the BCG has successfully performed a series of practice-changing trials enrolling several thousands of patients. These studies have contributed to the clinical knowledge on the treatment of breast cancer and have influenced clinical practice and breast cancer patients'' outcome worldwide. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: EORTC Headquarters plays a unique role in coordinating and supporting large-scale pan-European cancer clinical and translational research. Initially established to provide efficient methodological and coordinating services to the EORTC Research groups and to ensure professional involvement of the organization, it has grown over the years in step with an increasing number and complexity of cancer clinical trials. Recent advances in laboratories around the world have shed light on the biology of cancer, and EORTC Headquarters, armed with a competent and dedicated staff, continues to advance the state of cancer clinical research and implement the appropriate infrastructures to support the conduct of the next generation of cancer clinical trials. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and Methods: The optimal treatment of locally advanced breast cancer (LABC) remains undetermined. We analyzed factors influencing local therapy in LABC in a pooled material including three large clinical series. Results: Of a total of 787 patients, local therapy was given in 604, surgery in 184, radiotherapy in 69, and a combination thereof in 351. The use of local therapy was related to younger age, lower clinical T and N stage, no skin involvement and no progression during induction chemotherapy. The use of surgery was related to younger age, lower clinical T and N stage, no clinical skin involvement and response to induction chemotherapy. The use of postoperative radiotherapy was correlated with larger tumor size, higher number of positive lymph nodes, positive surgical margin, extracapsular lymph node extension, lymphatic vessel invasion and skin involvement. Conclusions: The most frequent local therapy in LABC remains a combination of surgery and radiotherapy. Clinical and pathological characteristics influence the type of local treatment. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: After the initial RECIST 1.0 were published in 2000, the criteria were widely implemented in the scientific oncology community. Since then, the RECIST working group has identified several issues to examine further. Two key issues that required careful, data-based assessment were the maximum number of lesions that should be assessed at each evaluation and the added value of requiring confirmation of response. Methods: To address these questions, data were obtained from 16 clinical trials in metastatic cancer, with patients enrolled between 1993 and 2005. A total of 6512 patients were included in the primary analysis dataset, accounting for over 18,000 potential target lesions. Nine percent of the included patients (n =585) had six or more reported target lesions. The response and progression outcomes in the database were calculated using an adjusted RECIST methodology with a maximum of 5 (or 3) target lesions with/without confirmation and this was compared to the original RECIST version 1.0 which required up to 10 target lesions plus confirmation of response. Results: Assessment of 5 lesions per patient led to a difference in best overall response assignment for an estimated 209 (3.2%) patients as compared to RECIST version 1.0. However, these changes did not affect the overall response rate. Progression-free survival was only minimally affected by measuring fewer lesions. In contrast, removing the requirement for response confirmation led to a significant increase in the numbers of patients classified as responders, resulting in a relative increase of approximately 19% in response rate. An algorithm using a maximum of three target lesions shows high concordance with the 10 lesions requirement in terms of response and TTP assignment. Concern that appropriate assessment of disease within an organ requires two lesions to be followed per organ suggests the approach of following two target lesions per organ, up to a maximum of five target lesions overall. Both strategies seem reasonable based on the data warehouse. The requirement of response confirmation in trials where this is a primary end-point is recommended to be maintained as its removal would substantially increase reported response rates. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The aim of this randomized phase II study was to evaluate the anti-tumor activity and safety of capecitabine and vinorelbine in patients with metastatic breast cancer pretreated with taxanes and anthracyclines. We planned to randomize 72 patients to capecitabine 1250mg/m2 orally bid days 1–14 or vinorelbine 30mg/m2 i.v. days 1 and 8, both given every 3 weeks. The study was stopped due to poor accrual with 47 patients enrolled. Responses were seen in 2/23 patients treated with capecitabine (8.7%; 95% CI 1.1–29.0) and 3/24 patients treated with vinorelbine (12.5%; 95% CI 2.7–32.4). Median progression-free survival was 2.8 and 2.6 months, and median overall survival was 9.3 and 11.0 months, in the capecitabine and vinorelbine arms, respectively. There was more hematologic toxicity, neurotoxicity, and nausea/vomiting with vinorelbine and more diarrhea and hand-foot syndrome with capecitabine. The anti-tumor activity of capecitabine and vinorelbine seems to be comparable, but the toxicity profiles are different. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To describe the attitudes of healthcare professionals and drug regulators about progression-free survival (PFS) as efficacy endpoint in clinical trials with patients with advanced cancer and to explore to what extent these attitudes influence the willingness to trade between PFS and toxicity. Cross-sectional survey with regulators from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and healthcare professionals (HCP) from the "Stichting Hemato-Oncologie voor Volwassenen Nederland" (HOVON) collaborative group and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). Attitudes towards PFS were elicited using 5-point Likert items. The respondents' willingness to trade between PFS and grade 3 or 4 (G34) toxicity was assessed using the threshold technique and quantified in terms of their maximum acceptable risk (MAR). Responses were collected from 287 HCPs and 64 regulators with mainly clinical expertise. Attitudes towards PFS were often spread out in both groups and related to beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate for clinical benefit, being an intrinsic benefit to be distinguished from OS, or on the importance given to OS. Being a regulator or holding stronger beliefs about PFS being a likely surrogate or an intrinsic benefit were associated with a higher MAR. Presence of a supportive trend in OS was stated as important but was not associated with MAR. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and the need for improving communication to patients about meaning, strengths, and limitations of improvements in PFS. Attitudes towards PFS were spread out and were associated with individual differences in the willingness to trade between toxicity and PFS. There was agreement on the need to address bias in the adjudication of PFS and improving communication to patients. • Varied views about PFS among healthcare professionals and regulators impact toxicity trade-offs. • Views about PFS related to beliefs about surrogacy and intrinsic benefit of PFS. • Concerns about bias and communication raised for PFS by healthcare professionals and regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Tumours respond differently to immunotherapies compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, raising questions about the assessment of changes in tumour burden-a mainstay of evaluation of cancer therapeutics that provides key information about objective response and disease progression. A consensus guideline-iRECIST-was developed by the RECIST working group for the use of modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST version 1.1) in cancer immunotherapy trials, to ensure consistent design and data collection, facilitate the ongoing collection of trial data, and ultimate validation of the guideline. This guideline describes a standard approach to solid tumour measurements and definitions for objective change in tumour size for use in trials in which an immunotherapy is used. Additionally, it defines the minimum datapoints required from future trials and those currently in development to facilitate the compilation of a data warehouse to use to later validate iRECIST. An unprecedented number of trials have been done, initiated, or are planned to test new immune modulators for cancer therapy using a variety of modified response criteria. This guideline will allow consistent conduct, interpretation, and analysis of trials of immunotherapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Preclinical data suggest that epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitors (e.g. gefitinib) can delay endocrine resistance in breast cancer. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase II trial investigated whether adding gefitinib (G) to anastrozole (A) would improve outcome in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Methods Postmenopausal pre-treated hormone receptor-positive ABC patients (locally recurrent or metastatic) were 1:1 randomized to A (1 mg/d) plus G 250 mg/d or plus placebo (P). Patients who had prior treatment with an aromatase inhibitor in metastatic setting or with trastuzumab, anti-EGFR or anti-VEGF agents were excluded. Treatment was given until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity or patient withdrawal. Progression-free survival (PFS) rate at 1 year was assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours, version 1.0. Results Of 108 planned patients, 71 were recruited (36 in A/G and 35 in A/P). The trial closed prematurely due to slow recruitment; 31 patients had prior chemotherapy and 53 prior endocrine therapy (all except one received tamoxifen); 60% in adjuvant and 16% in metastatic setting received tamoxifen; 59 patients had visceral disease. Median follow-up was 18 months. PFS rate at 1 year was 35% for A/G and 32% for A/P arm. Objective responses were six (22%) in the A/G and nine (28%) in the A/P arm. Median duration of response was 13.8 and 18.6 months in the A/G and A/P arms, respectively. Fatigue (35%), diarrhoea (31%), rash (32%), dry skin (27%), and arthralgia/myalgia (27%) were the commonest adverse events in the A/G arm. Conclusions This phase II study, although prematurely closed, did not show a signal that adding G to A improves PFS at 1 year and its use is not supported. Gastrointestinal and skin toxicities were more pronounced with G resulting in premature therapy interruption in almost 1 in 3 patients ( ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00066378 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is no consensus on how to estimate kidney function for the assessment of eligibility in clinical cancer trials. We recalculated the creatinine clearance (CrCl)/glomerular filtration rate (GFR) at baseline in a total of 1768 patients enrolled in twelve clinical trials using the Cockcroft-Gault (CG), Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD), 2021 Chronic Kidney Disease Epidemiology Collaboration (CKD-EPI 2021) and European Kidney Function Consortium (EKFC) formulas. Patients were classified as having renal impairment (RI; CrCl/GFR <60 mL/min) or no renal impairment (NRI; CrCl/GFR ≥60 mL/min) with each of the four formulas, respectively. Furthermore, we analyzed the number of adverse events (AE) per month under study treatment using measures of central tendency, variability and regression models. Using CG, EKFC, MDRD and CKD-EPI 2021, 152 (8 %), 140 (8 %), 110 (6 %), and 61 (4 %) patients had RI respectively. Indeed, 47 (3 %) patients had RI using all 4 formulas, while 158 (9 %) had RI by at least one but not all four methods. CG showed the broadest variability and inconsistencies with other methods. All calculation methods performed similarly for excluding patients at risk of severe AE. EKFC demonstrated superior predictive ability for excluding patients at risk of renal and urinary tract AE. This post hoc analysis highlights the importance of choosing accurate and representative methods for kidney function estimation in clinical cancer trials. CG should be replaced by newer methods. While CKD-EPI 2021 may maximize trial accrual, EKFC should be considered for treatment affecting kidney function. • Newer methods (MDRD, CKD-EPI2021, EKFC) show more consistency than Cockcroft-Gault. • CKD-EPI2021 estimation maximizes trial accrual. • EKFC formula predicts renal and urinary tract adverse events more effectively. • "As per institutional standard" is not recommended due to differences in calculation methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The MINDACT (Microarray In Node-negative and 1–3 node positive Disease may Avoid ChemoTherapy) trial investigates the clinical utility of the 70-gene profile (MammaPrint) for the selection of breast cancer patients for adjuvant chemotherapy (CT) together with standard clinicopathological criteria. We present the results of the pilot phase consisting of first 800 patients included. Methods: MINDACT has enrolled 6600 patients, classified into high or low risk by MammaPrint and clinicopathological risk through Adjuvant! Online. Patients with both clinical (C) and genomic (G) high risks are offered adjuvant CT; those with both C and G low risks do not receive CT; patients with discordant risk are randomised for the decision of adjuvant CT based on C or G risk. CT randomisation of anthracycline-based versus docetaxel/capecitabine and endocrine therapy randomisation between letrozole and tamoxifen→letrozole are offered. Results: During the pilot phase 46% of screened patients were enrolled. Main reasons for non-enrolment were node positivity before trial amendment, sample quality problems and failure to meet logistic settings. Among the 800 patients, 386 (48%) were C-low/G-low, 198 (24.8%) as C-high/G-high, 75 (9.4%) as C-low/G-high and 141 (17.6%) as C-high/G-low. In total 216 (27%) cases were discordant. The difference between patients with C-high (42%) and G-high risk (34%) is 8.25% (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.7–11.8%; P <.0001). Compliance with the treatment decision was high (>92%). Conclusions: The logistically complex MINDACT trial is feasible in a multinational setting. The proportion of discordant patients, the potential reduction in CT by using the genomic signature and compliance to treatment assignment are in accordance with the trial hypotheses. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: TP53 has a crucial role in the DNA damage response. We therefore tested the hypothesis that taxanes confer a greater advantage than do anthracyclines on breast cancers with mutated TP53 than in those with wild-type TP53. Methods: In an open-label, phase 3 study, women (age <71 years) with locally advanced, inflammatory, or large operable breast cancers were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard anthracycline regimen (six cycles of intravenous fluorouracil 500 mg/m2, epirubicin 100 mg/m2, and cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 every 21 days [FEC100], or fluorouracil 600 mg/m2, epirubicin 75 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 900 mg/m2 [tailored FEC] starting on day 1 and then every 21 days) or a taxane-based regimen (three cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2, intravenously infused over 1 h on day 1 every 21 days, followed by three cycles of intravenous epirubicin 90 mg/m2 and docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 21 days [T-ET]) at 42 centres in Europe. Randomisation was by use of a minimisation method that stratified patients by institution and initial tumour stage. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) according to TP53 status. Analysis was by intention to treat. This is the final analysis of this trial. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00017095. Findings: 928 patients were enrolled in the FEC group and 928 in the T-ET group. TP53 status was not assessable for 183 (20%) patients in the FEC group and 204 (22%) patients in the T-ET group mainly because of low tumour-cell content in the biopsy. 361 primary endpoint events were recorded in the FEC group and 314 in the T-ET group. In patients with TP53-mutated tumours, 5-year PFS was 59·5% (95% CI 53·4–65·1) in the T-ET group (n=326) and 55·3% (49·2–60·9) in the FEC group (n=318; hazard ratio 0·84, 98% CI 0·63–1·14; p=0·17). In patients with TP53 wild-type tumours, 5-year PFS was 66·8% (95% CI 61·4–71·6) in the T-ET group (n=398) and 64·7% (59·6–69·4) in the FEC group (n=427; 0·89, 98% CI 0·68–1·18; p=0·35). For all patients, irrespective of TP53 status, 5-year PFS was 65·1% (95% CI 61·6–68·3) in the T-ET group and 60·8% (57·3–64·2) in the FEC group (0·85, 98% CI 0·71–1·02; p=0·035). At the sites using FEC100 versus T-ET, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (75 [9%] of 803 vs 173 [21%] of 809, respectively), and neutropenia (653 [81%] vs 730 [90%], respectively). At the sites using tailored FEC versus T-ET, the most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events were febrile neutropenia (ten [8%] of 118 vs 26 [22%] of 116, respectively), and neutropenia (100 [85%] vs 115 [99%], respectively). Two patients died of toxicity during or within 30 days of chemotherapy completion and without disease relapse (one in each group). Interpretation: Although TP53 status was prognostic for overall survival, it was not predictive of preferential sensitivity to taxanes. TP53 status tested by use of the yeast assay in this patient population cannot be used to select patients for an anthracycline-based chemotherapy versus a taxane-based chemotherapy. Funding: US National Cancer Institute, La Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, European Union, Pharmacia, and Sanofi-Aventis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Academic, industry, regulatory leaders and patient advocates in cancer clinical research met in November 2018 at the Innovation and Biomarkers in Cancer Drug Development meeting in Brussels to address the existing dichotomy between increasing calls for personalised oncology approaches based on individual molecular profiles and the need to make resource and regulatory decisions at the societal level in differing health-care delivery systems around the globe. Novel clinical trial designs, the utility and limitations of real-world evidence (RWE) and emerging technologies for profiling patient tumours and tumour-derived DNA in plasma were discussed. While randomised clinical trials remain the gold standard approach to defining clinical utility of local and systemic therapeutic interventions, the broader adoption of comprehensive tumour profiling and novel trial designs coupled with RWE may allow patient and physician autonomy to be appropriately balanced with broader assessments of safety and overall societal benefit. • Develop biomarkers using rigorous methodology, rationality in clinical context, not limited to drug development. • Standardise biomarker testing seeking equivalence between Companion Diagnostics and Laboratory-Developed Tests. • Improve clinical study designs to include patient-centred end-points and core outcome sets. • Bridge the gap between individualised and population-based oncology using real-world evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) were developed and published in 2000, based on the original World Health Organisation guidelines first published in 1981. In 2009, revisions were made (RECIST 1.1) incorporating major changes, including a reduction in the number of lesions to be assessed, a new measurement method to classify lymph nodes as pathologic or normal, the clarification of the requirement to confirm a complete response or partial response and new methodologies for more appropriate measurement of disease progression. The purpose of this paper was to summarise the questions posed and the clarifications provided as an update to the 2009 publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiologic imaging of disease sites plays a pivotal role in the management of patients with cancer. Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST), introduced in 2000, and modified in 2009, has become the de facto standard for assessment of response in solid tumours in patients on clinical trials. The RECIST Working Group considers the ability of the global oncology community to implement and adopt updates to RECIST in a timely manner to be critical. Updates to RECIST must be tested, validated and implemented in a standardised, methodical manner in response to therapeutic and imaging technology advances as well as experience gained by users. This was the case with the development of RECIST 1.1, where an expanded data warehouse was developed to test and validate modifications. Similar initiatives are ongoing, testing RECIST in the evaluation of response to non-cytotoxic agents, immunotherapies, as well as in specific diseases. The RECIST Working Group has previously outlined the level of evidence considered necessary to formally and fully validate new imaging markers as an appropriate end-point for clinical trials. Achieving the optimal level of evidence desired is a difficult feat for phase III trials; this involves a meta-analysis of multiple prospective, randomised multicentre clinical trials. The rationale for modifications should also be considered; the modifications may be proposed to improve surrogacy, to provide a more mechanistic imaging technique, or be designed to improve reproducibility of the imaging biomarker. Here, we present the commonly described modifications of RECIST, each of which is associated with different levels of evidence and validation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Purpose: Progressive disease (PD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 is defined as growth of measurable target lesions, presence of new lesions or unequivocal progression of non-target disease. In this manuscript we explored whether a more refined categorisation of tumour response and/or these components of progression, varying over time, can improve prediction of overall survival (OS) in the RECIST database. Methods: Data were randomly selected from 13 randomised clinical trials (3758 patients with breast, lung or colorectal cancer). A maximum of five target lesions contributed to the sum of longest diameters. At each measurement time we determined: best target response as best % improvement from baseline; tumour growth of target lesions as worst % change and worst rate of increase (mm/week) from nadir; presence of new lesions and occurrence of non-target PD. OS was analysed by tumour type using Cox regression, adjusting for baseline sum and including these parameters as time-dependent covariates. Results: 36% of patients had new lesions, 28% non-target PD and 49% experienced target lesion growth (median strongest growth 1.5mm/week). Regardless of tumour type, presence of new lesions (hazard ratio (HR) ranging 1.5–2.3) and non-target PD (HR 1.5–2.0) were strongly associated with worse OS. The explanatory value of tumour growth for OS was low compared to the other components. Conclusion: Modelling target lesion tumour growth did not show a marked improvement in OS prediction over and above the other components. These analyses enable a better understanding of the role of each component in PD evaluation. Work is ongoing to incorporate this information into an updated version of RECIST with enhanced prediction of subsequent survival. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: With the increasing use of novel targeted agents and the development of high imaging techniques, response evaluation criteria in solid tumour (RECIST) 1.1 developed primarily for cytotoxic agents and anatomic imaging, has demonstrated limitations. A survey was conducted of RECIST users to identify concerns and their suggestions for future RECIST criteria. Methods: 140 key partners of the RECIST collaboration were asked to complete a questionnaire. The 49 questions concerned (a) satisfaction and concerns with RECIST 1.1; (b) use of modified RECIST criteria and (c) suggestions for the next RECIST Version. Results: Sixty-five replies were received. 52.3% responders were satisfied with RECIST 1.1, while 10.8% indicated dissatisfaction. Areas of potential weakness included: (a) lack of incorporation of potential early indicators of response such as functional imaging, (b) lack of validation in rarer tumour types and (c) lack of validation for novel (targeted) agents. Suggestions were multiple, with highest numbers on two points: developing sub-criteria for certain disease types and including advanced imaging techniques for the evaluation. Conclusions: Constructive suggestions were received for optimising the next version. Ongoing data collection will make it possible to investigate the possible utilisation of fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) imaging in tumour assessment, to verify whether RECIST is/can still be applicable in novel targeted therapy and to consider the need for criteria for specific disease types. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: Progressive disease (PD) per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) 1.1 is defined as growth of measurable target lesions, presence of new lesions or unequivocal progression of non-target disease. In this manuscript we explored whether a more refined categorisation of tumour response and/or these components of progression, varying over time, can improve prediction of overall survival (OS) in the RECIST database. Methods: Data were randomly selected from 13 randomised clinical trials (3758 patients with breast, lung or colorectal cancer). A maximum of five target lesions contributed to the sum of longest diameters. At each measurement time we determined: best target response as best % improvement from baseline; tumour growth of target lesions as worst % change and worst rate of increase (mm/week) from nadir; presence of new lesions and occurrence of non-target PD. OS was analysed by tumour type using Cox regression, adjusting for baseline sum and including these parameters as time-dependent covariates. Results: 36% of patients had new lesions, 28% non-target PD and 49% experienced target lesion growth (median strongest growth 1.5mm/week). Regardless of tumour type, presence of new lesions (hazard ratio (HR) ranging 1.5–2.3) and non-target PD (HR 1.5–2.0) were strongly associated with worse OS. The explanatory value of tumour growth for OS was low compared to the other components. Conclusion: Modelling target lesion tumour growth did not show a marked improvement in OS prediction over and above the other components. These analyses enable a better understanding of the role of each component in PD evaluation. Work is ongoing to incorporate this information into an updated version of RECIST with enhanced prediction of subsequent survival. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: The EORTC 10801 trial compared breast-conserving therapy (BCT) with modified radical mastectomy (MRM) in patients with tumours 5 cm or smaller and axillary node negative or positive disease. Compared with BCT, MRM resulted in better local control, but did not affect overall survival or time to distant metastases. We report 20-year follow-up results. Methods: The EORTC 10801 trial was open for accrual between 1980 and 1986 in eight centres in the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium, and South Africa. 448 patients were randomised to BCT and 420 to MRM. Randomisation was done centrally, stratifying patients by institute, carcinoma stage (I or II), and menopausal status. BCT comprised of lumpectomy and complete axillary clearance, followed by breast radiotherapy and a tumour-bed boost. The primary endpoint was time to distant metastasis. This analysis was done on all eligible patients, as they were randomised. Findings: After a median follow-up of 22·1 years (IQR 18·5–23·8), 175 patients (42%) had distant metastases in the MRM group versus 207 (46%) in the BCT group. Furthermore, 506 patients (58%) died (232 [55%] in the MRM group and 274 [61%] in the BCT group). No significant difference was observed between BCT and MRM for time to distant metastases (hazard ratio 1·13, 95% CI 0·92–1·38; p=0·23) or for time to death (1·11, 0·94–1·33; 0·23). Cumulative incidence of distant metastases at 20 years was 42·6% (95% CI 37·8–47·5) in the MRM group and 46·9% (42·2–51·6) in the BCT group. 20-year overall survival was estimated to be 44·5% (95% CI 39·3–49·5) in the MRM group and 39·1% (34·4–43·9) in the BCT group. There was no difference between the groups in time to distant metastases or overall survival by age (time to distant metastases: <50 years 1·09 [95% CI 0·79–1·51] vs ≥50 years 1·16 [0·90–1·50]; overall survival <50 years 1·17 [0·86–1·59] vs ≥50 years 1·10 [0·89–1·37]). Interpretation: BCT, including radiotherapy, offered as standard care to patients with early breast cancer seems to be justified, since long-term follow-up in this trial showed similar survival to that after mastectomy. Funding: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aims: BI 2536 is a selective and potent small-molecule inhibitor of polo-like kinase 1. We performed a multi-centre, multi-tumour phase II trial to investigate the efficacy, safety and pharmacokinetics of BI 2536 in five solid tumour types. Patients and methods: Patients with advanced head and neck, breast and ovarian cancer, soft tissue sarcoma and melanoma were selected according to protocol-defined general and tumour-specific criteria. They were ⩾18years old, had a good performance status, adequate bone marrow, renal and liver function, measurable progressive disease and had completed other relevant systemic treatments >4weeks ago. BI 2536 200–250mg was given intravenously on day 1 every 3 weeks until intolerance, progression or refusal. The study was based on a Simon two-stage design, with 12 patients entering in stage 1 and additional 25 patients to be entered in case of at least one response in the first stage. The rate of objective responses (RECIST criteria) was chosen as primary end-point. Results: Seventy six patients were included, 71 started treatment and received a median number of two cycles (four in ovarian cancer). Frequent grade 3–4 adverse events were neutropaenia (81.6%), thrombocytopaenia (19.7%), febrile neutropaenia (19.7%), anaemia (15.5%) and pain (9.9%). We did not observe confirmed objective responses. All cohorts were closed after the entry of 14–15 eligible non-responding patients. Pharmacokinetic analyses revealed multi-compartmental behaviour and a rapid distribution of BI 2536. Conclusions: BI 2536 showed limited antitumour activity according to the design of this trial in five different tumour types. Derivatives of BI 2536 with a more favourable pharmacological profile are currently explored further in prospective studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Summary: Background: The gold standard endpoint in randomised trials of locally advanced head and neck squamous-cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is overall survival. Our objective was to study whether duration of locoregional control or event-free survival (EFS) could be considered as surrogate endpoints to estimate the effect of radiotherapy and chemotherapy on overall survival. This would allow a reduction in the duration and cost of the development of new treatments. Methods: Individual patient data from 104 trials (22 744 patients), with 116 treatment–control comparisons, from four meta-analyses on hyperfractionated or accelerated radiotherapy and concomitant, induction, or adjuvant chemotherapy were analysed. Duration of locoregional control was defined as the time from randomisation to the first locoregional event and EFS as the time to any first event (ie, locoregional relapse, distant recurrence, or death). At the individual level, a rank correlation coefficient between the surrogate endpoint and overall survival was used to assess surrogacy; at the trial level, a correlation coefficient R between treatment effects was used. Findings: At the individual level, overall survival was more strongly correlated with EFS (range of correlations 0·82–0·90) than with locoregional control (0·65–0·76). For radiotherapy, treatment effects on both locoregional control and EFS were strongly correlated with those on overall survival (R=0·94 and 0·98, respectively). For chemotherapy, the correlations between treatment effects on EFS and overall survival were stronger than those between locoregional control and overall survival (range of R 0·79–0·93 vs 0·53–0·84, respectively). Interpretation: EFS is a better correlate with overall survival than locoregional control and could be used as a surrogate for overall survival to assess the treatment effect of radiotherapy and chemotherapy in randomised trials of locally advanced HNSCC. Funding: Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique, the Association pour la Recherche sur le Cancer, the Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: The contribution of adjuvant tamoxifen in breast cancer patients after receiving adjuvant chemotherapy is not fully established. We investigated the impact of tamoxifen, given sequentially after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with operable breast cancer. Patients and methods: Between March 1991 and June 1999, 1863 women with stages I–IIIA operable breast cancer who had undergone surgery and completed six cycles of adjuvant combination chemotherapy with either CMF, CAF, CEF, FAC or FEC were randomised to receive either tamoxifen 20mg daily for 3 years or no further treatment. Irrespective of menstrual status and hormone receptor content of the primary tumour, patients were stratified by institute, chemotherapy scheme and age (above 50 years or younger). The main end-point was to detect a 5% increase in the 5 year survival (from 80% to 85%) in favour of antioestrogen therapy. Secondary end-points were relapse free survival (RFS), local control, incidence of second primary breast cancer and correlation of results with hormone receptor content. Results: After exclusion of all patients from three sites because of inadequate documentation, a total of 1724 patients (93%) were analysed (Tam 861 and Control 863). At a median follow-up of 6.5 years, 5-year RFS on tamoxifen was 73% versus 67% in controls (p =0.035). No difference was seen in overall survival. The benefit of tamoxifen therapy was mainly seen in the subgroup of patients with histologically documented positive axillary nodes (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 71% versus 64% in the control group, p =0.044) and in patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype (5-year RFS on tamoxifen 77% versus 70% in the control group, p =0.014). Conclusions: Tamoxifen administered for 3 years after completion of adjuvant chemotherapy in this otherwise unselected group of patients for endocrine sensitivity had a limited impact on relapse and had no detectable effect on overall survival. The beneficial effect of tamoxifen is mainly confined to the subgroup of patients with node-positive disease and to patients with tumours expressing the ER and PR positive phenotype. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: We have performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of age, using a 70 year cutoff, on the safety and efficacy of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx™) given at 60mg/m2 every 6 weeks (treatment A) or 50mg/m2 every 4 weeks (treatment B) to 136 metastatic breast cancer patients in two EORTC trials, of whom 65 were 70 years of age or older. No difference in terms of toxicity was observed between younger and older patients treated with the 4-week schedule, while a higher incidence of hematological toxicity, anorexia, asthenia, and stomatitis was observed in older patients when the 6-week schedule was used. Antitumor activity was not affected by age. In the older cohort of patients, no dependence was found between the incidence of grade 3–4 toxicity or antitumor activity and patients’ baseline performance status, number and severity of comorbidities, or number of concomitant medications. The higher therapeutic index of Caelyx 50mg/m2 every 4 weeks makes it, of the two dose schedules investigated, the preferred regimen in the elderly. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background: In this phase I/II study, the addition of lapatinib (LAP) was investigated in combination with the sequential use of both approaches TPF induction chemotherapy (ICT) followed by chemoradiation (CRT) in locally advanced larynx or hypopharynx squamous cell carcinoma. Patients and methods: Objectives were to assess maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) and to recommend a safe dose of LAP when administered with 4 cycles of TPF followed by CRT. Results: Seven male patients were included. Three patients were included in the first cohort, at dose level 1 (LAP 500mg daily plus TPF). Renal toxicity was observed among these three patients (grade 3 [n =1], grade 2 [n =1] and grade 1 [n =1]), with 1 DLT, leading to treatment interruption in this group. Nephrotoxicity was reversible after stopping LAP and hydration of the patients. In a second cohort of four patients administering docetaxel from the second cycle, 3 more DLTs were observed (grade 2 renal toxicity and grade 3 diarrhea, grade 3 anorexia and grade 3 stomatitis, and grade 4 neutropenia). Based on the occurrence of 4 DLTs at the first dose level of LAP, patient recruitment was closed. Conclusion: These data indicate that LAP cannot be combined safely with full dose TPF. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]