Search

Background Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa), used as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) management, reduce serum oestradiol as well as testosterone, causing bone mineral density (BMD) loss. Transdermal oestradiol is a potential alternative to LHRHa. Objective To compare BMD change in men receiving either LHRHa or oestradiol patches (OP). Design, setting, and participants Men with locally advanced or metastatic PCa participating in the randomised UK Prostate Adenocarcinoma TransCutaneous Hormones (PATCH) trial (allocation ratio of 1:2 for LHRHa:OP, 2006–2011; 1:1, thereafter) were recruited into a BMD study (2006–2012). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans were performed at baseline, 1 yr, and 2 yr. Interventions LHRHa as per local practice, OP (FemSeven 100 μg/24 h patches). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was 1-yr change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD from baseline compared between randomised arms using analysis of covariance. Results and limitations A total of 74 eligible men (LHRHa 28, OP 46) participated from seven centres. Baseline clinical characteristics and 3-mo castration rates (testosterone ≤1.7 nmol/l, LHRHa 96% [26 of 27], OP 96% [43 of 45]) were similar between arms. Mean 1-yr change in LS BMD was −0.021 g/cm 3 for patients randomised to the LHRHa arm (mean percentage change −1.4%) and +0.069 g/cm 3 for the OP arm (+6.0%; p < 0.001). Similar patterns were seen in hip and total body measurements. The largest difference between arms was at 2 yr for those remaining on allocated treatment only: LS BMD mean percentage change LHRHa −3.0% and OP +7.9% ( p < 0.001). Conclusions Transdermal oestradiol as a single agent produces castration levels of testosterone while mitigating BMD loss. These early data provide further supporting evidence for the ongoing phase 3 trial. Patient summary This study found that prostate cancer patients treated with transdermal oestradiol for hormonal therapy did not experience the loss in bone mineral density seen with luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists. Other clinical outcomes for this treatment approach are being evaluated in the ongoing PATCH trial. Trial registration ISRCTN70406718, PATCH trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00303784 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Luteinising-hormone-releasing-hormone agonists (LHRHa) to treat prostate cancer are associated with long-term toxic effects, including osteoporosis. Use of parenteral oestrogen could avoid the long-term complications associated with LHRHa and the thromboembolic complications associated with oral oestrogen. Methods: In this multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase 2 trial, we enrolled men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer scheduled to start indefinite hormone therapy. Randomisation was by minimisation, in a 2:1 ratio, to four self-administered oestrogen patches (100 μg per 24 h) changed twice weekly or LHRHa given according to local practice. After castrate testosterone concentrations were reached (1·7 nmol/L or lower) men received three oestrogen patches changed twice weekly. The primary outcome, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, was analysed by modified intention to treat and by therapy at the time of the event to account for treatment crossover in cases of disease progression. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00303784. Findings: 85 patients were randomly assigned to receive LHRHa and 169 to receive oestrogen patches. All 85 patients started LHRHa, and 168 started oestrogen patches. At 3 months, 70 (93%) of 75 receiving LHRHa and 111 (92%) of 121 receiving oestrogen had achieved castrate testosterone concentrations. After a median follow-up of 19 months (IQR 12–31), 24 cardiovascular events were reported, six events in six (7·1%) men in the LHRHa group (95% CI 2·7–14·9) and 18 events in 17 (10·1%) men in the oestrogen-patch group (6·0–15·6). Nine (50%) of 18 events in the oestrogen group occurred after crossover to LHRHa. Mean 12-month changes in fasting glucose concentrations were 0·33 mmol/L (5·5%) in the LHRHa group and −0·16 mmol/L (−2·4%) in the oestrogen-patch group (p=0·004), and for fasting cholesterol were 0·20 mmol/L (4·1%) and −0·23 mmol/L (−3·3%), respectively (p<0·0001). Other adverse events reported by 6 months included gynaecomastia (15 [19%] of 78 patients in the LHRHa group vs 104 [75%] of 138 in the oestrogen-patch group), hot flushes (44 [56%] vs 35 [25%]), and dermatological problems (10 [13%] vs 58 [42%]). Interpretation: Parenteral oestrogen could be a potential alternative to LHRHa in management of prostate cancer if efficacy is confirmed. On the basis of our findings, enrolment in the PATCH trial has been extended, with a primary outcome of progression-free survival. Funding: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Randomised controlled trials are the gold standard method for developing evidence-based medicine. Good trial design and an awareness of some potential pitfalls are likely to maximise the chances of a successful trial with a conclusion that adds meaningfully to the evidence base. This paper is aimed at people early in their research careers and focuses on some common, usually avoidable, pitfalls in trial design. The areas covered include: assessing the scientific idea; trial design; size and duration of the trial; analysis; and reporting and presentation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

There is a lack of large-scale randomised data evaluating the impact of sex and age in patients undergoing chemotherapy followed by potentially curative surgery for oesophagogastric cancer. Individual patient data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for patients aged <70 and ≥ 70 years, as well as between males and females. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and, ≥grade III toxicities were compared using logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios. All analyses were adjusted for the type of chemotherapy received. 3265 patients were included for survival analysis (2668 [82%] male, 597 [18%] female; 2627 (80%) <70 years, 638 (20%) ≥70 years). A significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) was observed in females compared with males. No significant differences in OS (HR: 1.11; p = 0.045) or DSS (HR: 1.01; p = 0.821) were observed in older patients compared with younger patients. For patients who underwent resection, older patients (15% vs 10%; p = 0.03) and female patients (14% vs 10%, p = 0.10) were more likely to achieve favourable Mandard TRG scores. Females experienced significantly more ≥grade III nausea (10% vs 5%; p≤0.001), vomiting (10% vs 4%; p≤0.001) and diarrhoea (9% vs 4%; p≤0.001) than males. In this large pooled analysis using prospective randomised trial data, females had significantly improved survival while experiencing more gastrointestinal toxicities. Older patients achieved comparable survival to younger patients and thus, dependent on fitness, should be offered the same treatment paradigm. • Individual patient data pooled from four randomised trials in localised oesophagogastric cancer. • Female patients had significantly improved survival than male patients. • Females experienced more gastrointestinal toxicity from chemotherapy. • Older patients had comparable survival to younger patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adenocarcinoma with more than 50% extracellular mucin is a relatively rare histological subtype of gastrointestinal adenocarcinomas. The clinical impact of extracellular mucin in oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OeAC) has not been investigated in detail. We hypothesised that patients with mucinous OeAC (OeAC mucin) do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. OeAC patients either treated by surgery alone in the OE02 trial (S-patients) or by neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS-patients) in OE02 or OE05 trials were included. Cancers from 1055 resection specimens (OE02 [test cohort]: 187 CS, 185 S; OE05 [validation cohort]: 683 CS) were classified as either mucinous (more than 50% of the tumour area consists of extracellular mucin, OeAC mucin) or non-mucinous adenocarcinoma (OeAC non-mucin). The relationship between histological phenotype, clinicopathological characteristics, survival and treatment was analysed. Overall, 7.3% and 9.6% OeAC were classified as OeAC mucin in OE02 and OE05, respectively. In OE02, the frequency of OeAC mucin was similar in S and CS-patients. Patients with OeAC mucin treated with surgery alone had a poorer overall survival compared with OeAC non-mucin patients (hazard ratio: 2.222, 95% confidence interval: 1.08–4.56, P = 0.025). Patients with OeAC mucin treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery had similar survival as OeAC non-mucin patients in test and validation cohort. This is the first study to suggest in a post-hoc analysis of material from two independent phase III clinical trials that the poor survival of patients with mucinous OeAC can be improved by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Future studies are warranted to identify potential underlying biological, biochemical or pharmacokinetic interactions between extracellular mucin and chemotherapy. • Gastrointestinal mucinous adenocarcinoma (AC mucin) has a poorer prognosis. • Response to chemotherapy in oesophageal AC mucin (OeAC mucin) is unclear. • OeAC mucin patients treated with surgery alone have poor survival in OE02 trial. • Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improved survival of OeAC mucin patients in OE02 and OE05. • OeAC mucin patients should be treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: Five-year disease-free survival rates for localised prostate cancer following standard doses of conventional radical external beam radiotherapy are around 80%. Conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) raises the possibility that radiotherapy doses can be increased and long-term efficacy outcomes improved, with safety an important consideration. Methods: MRC RT01 is a randomised controlled trial of 862 men with localised prostate cancer comparing Standard CFRT (64Gy/32f) versus Escalated CFRT (74Gy/37f), both administered with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression. Early toxicity was measured using physician-reported instruments (RTOG, LENT/SOM, Royal Marsden Scales) and patient-reported questionnaires (MOS SF-36, UCLA Prostate Cancer Index, FACT-P). Results: Overall early radiotherapy toxicity was similar, apart from increased bladder, bowel and sexual toxicity, in the Escalated Group during a short immediate post-radiotherapy period. Toxicity in both groups had abated by week 12. Using RTOG Acute Toxicity scores, cumulative Grade ⩾2 bladder and bowel toxicity was 38% and 30% for Standard Group and 39% and 33% in Escalated Group, respectively. Urinary frequency (Royal Marsden Scale) improved in both groups from pre-androgen suppression to 6months post-radiotherapy (p <0.001), but bowel and sexual functioning deteriorated. This pattern was supported by patient-completed assessments. Six months after starting radiotherapy the incidence of RTOG Grade ⩾2 side-effects was low (<1%); but there were six reports of rectal ulceration (6 Escalated Group), six haematuria (5 Escalated Group) and eight urethral stricture (6 Escalated Group). Conclusions: The two CFRT schedules with neo-adjuvant androgen suppression have broadly similar early toxicity profiles except for the immediate post-RT period. At 6months and compared to before hormone therapy, bladder symptoms improved, whereas bowel and sexual symptoms worsened. These assessments of early treatment safety will be complemented by further follow-up to document late side-effects and efficacy. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced GC/GEJC, though with unsatisfactory results. dMMR/MSI-high tumors have better prognosis and scant benefit from chemotherapy as compared to pMMR/MSS ones. The differential outcome of therapies in terms of safety and efficacy according to sex is still debated in GC/GEJC patients. We previously performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of MAGIC, CLASSIC, ITACA-S, and ARTIST trials including GC/GEJC patients treated with surgery alone or surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy to assess the value of MSI status. We performed a secondary analysis investigating the prognostic and predictive role of sex (female versus male) in the pooled analysis dataset in the overall population and patients stratified for MSI status (MSI-high versus MSS/MSI-low). Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated. Patients with MSI-high tumors had improved survival as compared to MSS/MSI-low ones irrespective of sex, whereas in those with MSS/MSI-low tumors, females had numerically longer OS and DFS (5-year OS was 63.2% versus 57.6%, HR 0.842; p = 0.058, and 5-year DFS was 55.8% versus 50.8%, HR 0.850; p = 0.0504 in female versus male patients). The numerical difference for the detrimental effect of chemotherapy in MSI-high GC was higher in females than males, while the significant benefit of chemotherapy over surgery alone was confirmed in MSS/MSI-low GC irrespective of sex. This pooled analysis including four randomized trials highlights a relevant impact of sex in the prognosis and treatment efficacy of MSI-high and MSS/MSI-low non-metastatic GC/GEJC. • Role of sex in individual patient data analysis on MSI/MSS resectable gastric cancer. • MSI-high GC patients have better prognosis than MSS/MSI-low ones irrespective of sex. • In MSS/MSI-low GC females had non-significantly improved DFS and OS than males. • MSI-high GC females had a higher trend of detriment from multimodal therapy than males. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

DNA methylation signatures describing distinct histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer have been reported. We studied DNA methylation in samples from the MRC OE02 phase III trial, which randomised patients with resectable oesophageal cancer to surgery alone (S) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS). The aim of the study was to identify epigenetic signatures predictive of chemotherapy benefit in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) from the OE02 trial and validate the findings in an independent cohort. DNA methylation was analysed using the Illumina GoldenGate platform on surgically resected OAC specimens from patients in the OE02 trial. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to select probes predictive of survival in the CS arm. Non-negative matrix factorisation was used to perform clustering and delineate DNA methylation signatures. The findings were validated in an independent cohort of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. A total of 229 patients with OAC were analysed from the OE02 trial (118 in the CS arm and 111 in the S arm). There was no difference in DNA methylation status between the CS and S arms. A metagene signature was created by dichotomising samples into two clusters. In cluster 1, patients in the CS arm had significant overall survival (OS) benefit (median OS CS: 931 days vs. S: 536 days [HR: 1.54, P = 0.031]). In cluster 2, patients in the CS arm had similar (or worse) OS compared with patients in the S arm (CS: 348 days vs. S: 472 days [HR: 0.70, P = 0.1], and test of interaction was significant (p = 0.005). In the validation cohort (n = 13), there was no difference in DNA methylation status in paired pre- and post-treatment samples. When the epigenetic signature was applied, cluster 1 samples had better OS (median OS, cluster 1: 1174 days vs. cluster 2: 392 days, HR: 3.47, p = 0.059) This is the first and largest study of DNA methylation in patients with OAC uniformly treated in a randomised phase III trial. We identified an epigenetic signature that may serve as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy benefit in OAC. • DNA methylation of oesophageal adenocarcinoma was reported from the phase III OE02 trial. • The novel epigenetic signature identifies two clinically distinct groups. • The signature was predictive of overall survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. • The signature was validated in an independent cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen.Methods: OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed.Findings: Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis.Interpretation: Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma.Funding: Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Peri-operative chemotherapy and surgery is a standard of care for patients with resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody against VEGF, improves the proportion of patients responding to treatment in advanced gastric cancer. We aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of adding bevacizumab to peri-operative chemotherapy in patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma.Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, open-label phase 2-3 trial, we recruited patients aged 18 years and older with histologically proven, resectable oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma from 87 UK hospitals and cancer centres. We randomly assigned patients 1:1 to receive peri-operative epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab, in addition to surgery. Patients in the control group (chemotherapy alone) received three pre-operative and three post-operative cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy: 50 mg/m2 epirubicin and 60 mg/m2 cisplatin on day 1 and 1250 mg/m2 oral capecitabine on days 1-21. Patients in the investigational group received the same treatment as the control group plus 7·5 mg/kg intravenous bevacizumab on day 1 of every cycle of chemotherapy and for six further doses once every 21 days following chemotherapy, as maintenance treatment. Randomisation was done by means of a telephone call to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit, where staff used a computer programme that implemented a minimisation algorithm with a random element to establish the allocation for the patient at the point of randomisation. Patients were stratified by chemotherapy centre, site of tumour, and tumour stage. The primary outcome for the phase 3 stage of the trial was overall survival (defined as the time from randomisation until death from any cause), analysed in the intention-to-treat population. Here, we report the primary analysis results of the trial; all patients have completed treatment and the required number of primary outcome events has been reached. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 46020948, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00450203.Findings: Between Oct 31, 2007, and March 25, 2014, 1063 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive chemotherapy alone (n=533) or chemotherapy plus bevacizumab (n=530). At the time of analysis, 508 deaths were recorded (248 in the chemotherapy alone group and 260 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group). 3-year overall survival was 50·3% (95% CI 45·5-54·9) in the chemotherapy alone group and 48·1% (43·2-52·7) in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (hazard ratio [HR] 1·08, 95% CI 0·91-1·29; p=0·36). Apart from neutropenia no other toxic effects were reported at grade 3 or worse severity in more than 10% of patients in either group. Wound healing complications were more prevalent in the bevacizumab group, occurring in 53 (12%) patients in this group compared with 33 (7%) patients in the chemotherapy alone group. In patients who underwent oesophagogastrectomy, post-operative anastomotic leak rates were higher in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group (23 [10%] of 233 in the chemotherapy alone group vs 52 [24%] of 220 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group); therefore, recruitment of patients with lower oesophageal or junctional tumours planned for an oesophagogastric resection was stopped towards the end of the trial. Serious adverse events for all patients included anastomotic leaks (30 events in chemotherapy alone group vs 69 in the chemotherapy plus bevacizumab group), and infections with normal neutrophil count (42 events vs 53).Interpretation: The results of this trial do not provide any evidence for the use of bevacizumab in combination with peri-operative epiribicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine chemotherapy for patients with resectable gastric, oesophagogastric junction, or lower oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Bevacizumab might also be associated with impaired wound healing.Funding: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and F Hoffmann-La Roche Limited. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources. Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored. From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR. Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2–6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2–3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs. REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council , sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021–002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001–0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is a considerable body of pre-clinical, epidemiological and randomised data to support the hypothesis that aspirin has the potential to be an effective adjuvant cancer therapy. Methods Add-Aspirin is a phase III, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial with four parallel cohorts. Patients who have undergone potentially curative treatment for breast ( n = 3100), colorectal ( n = 2600), gastro-oesophageal ( n = 2100) or prostate cancer ( n = 2120) are registered into four tumour specific cohorts. All cohorts recruit in the United Kingdom, with the breast and gastro-oesophageal cohort also recruiting in India. Eligible participants first undertake an active run-in period where 100 mg aspirin is taken daily for approximately eight weeks. Participants who are able to adhere and tolerate aspirin then undergo a double-blind randomisation and are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to either 100 mg aspirin, 300 mg aspirin or a matched placebo to be taken daily for at least five years. Those participants ≥ 75 years old are only randomised to 100 mg aspirin or placebo due to increased toxicity risk. Results The primary outcome measures are invasive disease-free survival for the breast cohort, disease-free survival for the colorectal cohort, overall survival for the gastro-oesophageal cohort, and biochemical recurrence-free survival for the prostate cohort, with a co-primary outcome of overall survival across all cohorts. Secondary outcomes include adherence, toxicity including serious haemorrhage, cardiovascular events and some cohort specific measures. Conclusions The Add-Aspirin trial investigates whether regular aspirin use after standard therapy prevents recurrence and prolongs survival in participants with four non-metastatic common solid tumours. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]