Search

The European Breast Cancer Council (EBCC) traditionally identifies controversies or major deficiencies in the management of patients with breast cancer and selects a multidisciplinary expert team to collaborate in setting crucial principles and recommendations to improve breast cancer care. The 2024 EBCC manifesto focuses on disparities in the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer. There are several reasons for existing disparities both between and within countries. Our recommendations aim to address the stigma of metastatic disease, which has led to significant disparities in access to innovative care regardless of the gross national income of a country. These recommendations are for different stakeholders to promote the care of patients with metastatic breast cancer across Europe and worldwide., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest MI reports speaker fees/honoraria from Novartis, Seattle Genetics, Daichi, Menarini/Stemline and Gilead, research grants (to institution) from Pfizer, Roche, Inivata Inc, Natera Inc and Gilead, and meeting/travel grants from Roche, AstraZeneca and Gilead (all outside the submitted work). TS reports personal fees for advisory board participation from MSD and Roche and for invited speaker engagements at regional conferences from Roche and Pfizer (outside the submitted work). EB reports honoraria from Pfizer, Lilly and Incyte, consulting/advisory roles for Pfizer, Sandoz-Novartis, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca and Menarini, and travel/accommodation/expenses from Pfizer and Novartis. DL reports payment (to institution) from the European Medicines Agency for board participation and payment (to institution) from the ESMO Sarcoma and Rare Cancers meeting for participation as a guest speaker. GSS reports institutional research support from Agendia, AstraZeneca, Merck, Novartis, Roche and Seagen. He is a board member of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. AV-S reports speaker honoraria from Ibex Medical Analytics, Myriad, AstraZeneca, Roche and MSD, advisory board participation for Ibex Medical Analytics and Primaa, travel support from Ibex Medical Analytics and AstraZeneca, research grants from Ibex Medical Analytics, Owkin, Primaa, AstraZeneca and MSD Avenir, and stock options for Ibex Medical Analytics. IM declares small fees as honoraria for advisory boards supported by Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, SeaGen, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Gilead, and Menarini Stemline. PA reports honoraria from Synthon, Roche and Gilead, consulting or advisory roles for MacroGenics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, amcure, Roche, Novartis, Amgen, Servier, G1 Therapeutics, Radius Health, Deloitte, Menarini, Gilead Sciences, Incyte and Lilly, research funding from Roche (to institution) and travel/accommodation/expenses from Amgen, MSD Oncology, Roche Belgium, Pfizer, Daiichi Sankyo/AstraZeneca and Gilead Sciences. FC reports consultancy roles for Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, IQVIA, MacroGenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus BV, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre-Fabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva and TouchIME. VPR reports no conflict of interest related to the current article and reports grants from Agendia BV more than 5 years ago. DC reports non-personal relationships (any fees go to employer) with AstraZeneca, Eisai, Seagen, Roche, Pfizer, Lilly, Novartis, Synthon, GSK, Gilead, Daichi and Menarini/Stemline; he is Chair of the Board of the non-profit “Make 2nds Count” charity and the Breast International Group. FP, FVD, OK-P and FL report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: R.S.: Nothing to declare. M.V.H.: Nothing to declare. J.B.: Nothing to declare. C.M.B.: Nothing to declare. J.J.C.: Nothing to declare. A.D.: I have received institutional research funding from Janssen and IQVIA, speaker honoraria from Janssen and Medtronic, and am founder, shareholder and employee of Medical Data Works B.V. E.A.E.: Nothing to declare. A.F.: Nothing to declare. A.G.: Nothing to declare. M.A.H.: My research is supported by funding from NIH, the US Veterans Administration, and PCORI. I am a consultant for Cytel, data science adviser for ProPublica, and member of the scientific advisory board of ADIA Lab. None of these interests or relationships have influenced my contribution to this paper. F.H.: I report that a party related to me is employed by Janssen-Cilag GmbH as principal data scientist. P.O.: I have performed consultancy work for AAA, Bayer, Curium, MSD, Janssen and have received research grants from Bayer. P.S.: I have had advisory relationships with Merck-Serono, Servier, and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp in the last three years. H.M.V.: Nothing to declare. M.W.: I have received research grants from Quercis and Versameb, and honoraria for lectures or advisory board participation or consulting from Bayer, Curevac, Medac, Novartis, Novocure, Orbus, Philogen, Roche and Sandoz. R.W.: Nothing to declare. D.L.: I am member of the EMA Management Board, member of the EMA Health Care Professionals Working Party and of the EMA Healthcare Professionals Policy Officers’ Group, and co-chair of the EMA Cancer Medicines Forum. W.T.V.D.G.: I have performed advisory work for SpringWorks, PTC Therapeutics, Agenus and received research funding from Eli Lilly, all fees going to the institute., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The European Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOPE) Radiation Oncology Working Group presents the QUARTET Project: a centralised quality assurance programme designed to standardise care and improve the quality of radiotherapy and imaging for international clinical trials recruiting children and adolescents with cancer throughout Europe. QUARTET combines the paediatric radiation oncology expertise of SIOPE with the infrastructure and experience of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer to deliver radiotherapy quality assurance programmes for large, prospective, international clinical trials. QUARTET-affiliated trials include children and adolescents with brain tumours, neuroblastoma, sarcomas including rhabdomyosarcoma, and renal tumours including Wilms' tumour. With nine prospective clinical trials and two retrospective studies within the active portfolio in March 2022, QUARTET will collect one of the largest repositories of paediatric radiotherapy and imaging data, support the clinical assessment of radiotherapy, and evaluate the role and benefit of radiotherapy quality assurance for this cohort of patients within the context of clinical trials., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Treatment optimisation studies (TOSs) are clinical trials which aim to tackle research questions that are often left unaddressed within the current drug development paradigm due to a lack of financial and regulatory incentives to undertake them. Examples include comparative effectiveness, therapeutic sequencing and dose de-escalation studies. Trials of this nature have historically been primarily carried out by academic institutions and not-for-profit organisations such as the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)., Objectives: Our objective was to conduct an in-depth analysis of the breast, lung and colorectal cancer TOSs that have been performed by the EORTC in the past four decades., Methods: We searched the EORTC clinical trials database for relevant studies and subsequently analysed them based on a number of predefined criteria relating to their design, organisation and scientific impact., Results: The 113 EORTC TOSs examined in this analysis were mainly standard-sized, international, multicentre phase III trials using a relatively simple, randomised, open-label design and comparing pharmacological combination regimens against standard-of-care treatments in terms of their potential to improve overall survival of patients with cancer. Although they were typically financially and/or materially supported by the industry, their legal sponsor was nearly always an independent party that did not benefit monetarily from their outcomes. If meaningful findings were obtained, their results, regardless of whether positive or negative, were published in high-impact journals, and the corresponding articles usually received a considerable number of citations., Conclusions: Our analysis provides an empirical framework for setting up future TOSs based on the EORTC experience in oncology., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: New technologies and techniques in radiation oncology and imaging offer opportunities to enhance the benefit of loco-regional treatments, expand treatment to new patient populations such as those with oligometastatic disease and decrease normal tissue toxicity. Furthermore, novel agents have become available which may be combined with radiation therapy, and identification of radiation-related biomarkers can be studied to refine treatment prescriptions. Finally, the use of artificial intelligence (AI) capabilities may also improve treatment quality assurance or the ease with which radiation dosing is prescribed. All of these potential advances present both opportunities and challenges for academic clinical researchers., Methods: Recently, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer addressed these topics in a meeting of multiple stakeholders from Europe and North America. The following five themes radiobiology-based biomarkers, new technologies - particularly proton beam therapy, combination systemic and radiation therapy, management of oligometastatic disease and AI opportunities in radiation oncology were discussed in a State of Science format to define key controversies, unanswered questions and propose clinical trial priorities for development., Conclusions: Priorities for clinical trials implementing new science and technologies have been defined. Solutions to integrate the multidimensional complexity of data have been explored. New types of platforms and partnerships can support innovative approaches for clinical research in radiation oncology., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In recent decades cancer care has seen improvements in the speed and accuracy of diagnostic procedures; the effectiveness of surgery, radiation therapy and medical treatments; the power of information technology; and the development of multidisciplinary, specialist-led approaches to care. Such innovations are essential if we are to continue improving the lives of cancer patients across Europe despite financial pressures on our healthcare systems. Investment in innovation must be balanced with the need to ensure the sustainability of healthcare budgets, and all health professionals have a responsibility to help achieve this balance. It requires scrutiny of the way care is delivered; we must be ready to discontinue practices or interventions that are inefficient, and prioritise innovations that may deliver the best outcomes possible for patients within the limits of available resources. Decisions on innovations should take into account their long-term impact on patient outcomes and costs, not just their immediate costs. Adopting a culture of innovation requires a multidisciplinary team approach, with the patient at the centre and an integral part of the team. It must take a whole-system and whole-patient perspective on cancer care and be guided by high-quality real-world data, including outcomes relevant to the patient and actual costs of care; this accurately reflects the impact of any innovation in clinical practice. The European CanCer Organisation is committed to working with its member societies, patient organisations and the cancer community at large to find sustainable ways to identify and integrate the most meaningful innovations into all aspects of cancer care., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

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 randomized--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., (Copyright © 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: It is increasingly clear that definitions of dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) established for phase 1 trials of cytotoxic agents are not suitable for molecularly targeted agents because of specific toxicity profiles. An international survey collected expertise on the definition of DLT, as part of an initiative aimed at presenting new guidelines for phase 1 trials of targeted agents., Methods: A 15-question survey was sent to corresponding authors of phase 1 reports. Questions involved: duration of the DLT assessment period, incorporation of specific grade 1 (G1) or G2 toxicity and their minimum duration to qualify as DLT, exclusion of specific G3 and inclusion of dose modification/delay., Results: Among the 400 investigators contacted, 93 replied of whom 65 completed the questionnaires. A total of 87% opted for an extended DLT assessment period beyond cycle 1, with the proviso not to delay patient accrual. Reanalysis at the end of the study of all safety data was proposed in order to recommend the phase 2 dose. Most respondents (92%) suggested including dose modification in the definition of DLT when dose intensity was decreased to 70%. Whilst moderate toxicity was deemed relevant by 70%, the G1/2 toxicities selected to define DLT however varied., Conclusion: The majority of experts favoured a longer DLT assessment period as well as incorporation of specific G2 toxicities into the DLT definition. However, no clear consensus existed on a re-definition of DLT. Therefore analyses of a large international data warehouse were also used to develop guidelines presented in a companion paper., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Traditional dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) definition, which uses grade (G) 3-4 toxicity data from cycle 1 (C1) only, may not be appropriate for molecularly targeted agents (MTAs) of prolonged administration, for which late or lower grade toxicities also deserve attention., Patients and Methods: In collaboration with pharmaceutical companies and academia, an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)-led initiative, Dose-Limiting Toxicity and Toxicity Assessment Recommendation Group for Early Trials of Targeted therapies (DLT-TARGETT), collected data from completed phase 1 trials evaluating MTAs as monotherapy. All toxicities at least possibly related to the study drugs that occurred during C1-6, their type, grade (CTCAEv3.0), and duration as well as patients' relative dose-intensity (RDI), were recorded., Results: The 54 eligible trials enrolled 2084 evaluable adult patients with solid tumours between 1999 and 2013, and evaluated small molecules (40), antibodies (seven), recombinant peptides (five) and antisense oligodeoxynucleotides (two). A maximum tolerated dose was set in 43 trials. Fifteen percent of the patients received <75% of the intended RDI in C1, but only 9.1% of them presented protocol-defined DLTs. After C1, 16-19% of patients received <75% of the intended RDI. A similar proportion of G ⩾ 3 toxicities was recorded in C1 and after C1 (936 and 1087 toxicities, respectively), with the first G⩾3 toxicity occurring after C1 in 18.6% of patients., Conclusion: Although protocol-defined DLT period is traditionally limited to C1, almost 20% of patients present significant reductions in RDI at any time in phase 1 trials of MTAs. Recommended phase 2 dose assessment should incorporate all available information from any cycle (notably lower grade toxicities leading to such RDI decrease), and be based on achieving >75% RDI., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The prognosis of patients with anaplastic oligodendrogliomas (AOD) and oligoastrocytomas (AOA) is variable. Biomarkers might be helpful to identify more homogeneous disease subtypes and improve therapeutic index. The aim of this study is to develop new clinical, pathological and molecular prognostic models for locally diagnosed anaplastic gliomas with oligodendroglial features (AOD or AOA)., Methods: Data from 368 patients with AOD or AOA recruited in The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 26951 on adjuvant PCV (Procarbazine, CCNU, Vincristine) chemotherapy in anaplastic oligodendroglial tumours were used to develop multifactor models to predict progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Different models were compared by their percentage of explained variation (PEV). Prognostic calculators were derived from these new models., Results: Treatment (for PFS only), younger age, confirmed absence of residual tumour on imaging, frontal location, good World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status, absence of endothelial abnormalities and/or necrosis, 1p/19q codeletion and Isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1) mutation were independent factors that predicted better PFS and OS., Conclusions: We identified important prognostic factors for AOD and AOA and showed that molecular markers added a major contribution to clinical and pathological factors in explaining PFS and OS. With a positive predictive value of 92% for PFS and 94% for OS, our models allow physicians to precisely identify high risk patients and aid in making therapeutic decisions., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

As health care costs are constantly rising and governments are reforming their healthcare systems there is an urgent need to reshape the European clinical research landscape. To bridge the translational gap extensive research to understand the mechanism of the agents and of the disease has to be performed and the real benefit of drugs needs to be assessed independently. Furthermore, meaningful data for reimbursement strategies will be a major goal of future clinical trials as well. Therefore, a new integrated model of clinical cancer research is needed to optimise the R&D process. Strategies to ensure that we can gather robust and relevant data about the effectiveness of various healthcare interventions have to be developed to provide optimal patient care within the limits of a healthcare budget., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic models have been developed to predict survival of patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma (GBM). To improve predictions, models should be updated with information at the recurrence. We performed a pooled analysis of European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trials on recurrent glioblastoma to validate existing clinical prognostic factors, identify new markers, and derive new predictions for overall survival (OS) and progression free survival (PFS)., Methods: Data from 300 patients with recurrent GBM recruited in eight phase I or II trials conducted by the EORTC Brain Tumour Group were used to evaluate patient's age, sex, World Health Organisation (WHO) performance status (PS), presence of neurological deficits, disease history, use of steroids or anti-epileptics and disease characteristics to predict PFS and OS. Prognostic calculators were developed in patients initially treated by chemoradiation with temozolomide., Results: Poor PS and more than one target lesion had a significant negative prognostic impact for both PFS and OS. Patients with large tumours measured by the maximum diameter of the largest lesion (⩾42mm) and treated with steroids at baseline had shorter OS. Tumours with predominant frontal location had better survival. Age and sex did not show independent prognostic values for PFS or OS., Conclusions: This analysis confirms performance status but not age as a major prognostic factor for PFS and OS in recurrent GBM. Patients with multiple and large lesions have an increased risk of death. With these data prognostic calculators with confidence intervals for both medians and fixed time probabilities of survival were derived., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Glioblastoma is a highly vascularised tumour with a high expression of both vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and VEGFR. PTK787/ZK222584 (PTK/ZK, vatalanib), a multiple VEGF receptor inhibitor, blocks the intracellular tyrosine kinase activity of all known VEGF receptors and is therefore suitable for long-term therapy of pathologic tumour neovascularisation., Patients and Methods: The study was designed as an open-label, phase I/II study. A classic 3+3 design was selected. PTK/ZK was added to standard concomitant and adjuvant treatment, beginning in the morning of day 1 of radiotherapy (RT), and given continuously until disease progression or toxicity. PTK/ZK doses started from 500 mg with subsequent escalations to 1000 and 1250 mg/d. Adjuvant or maintenance PTK after the end of radiochemotherapy was given at a previously established dose of 750 mg twice daily continuously with TMZ at the standard adjuvant dose., Results: Twenty patients were enrolled. Dose-limiting toxicities at a once daily dose of 1250 mg were grade 3 diarrhoea (n=1), grade 3 ALT increase (n=2), and myelosuppression with grade 4 thrombocytopenia and neutropenia (n=1). The recommended dose of PTK/ZK in combination with radiotherapy and temozolomide (TMZ) is 1000 mg once a day. This treatment is safe and well tolerated., Conclusion: In our phase I study once daily administration of up to 1000 mg of PTK/ZK in conjunction with concomitant temozolomide and radiotherapy was feasible and safe. Prolonged administration of this oral agent is manageable. The planned randomised phase II trial was discontinued right at its onset due to industry decision not to further develop this agent., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

Safety of aviscumine by subcutaneous route was assessed in patients with advanced cancer refractory to chemotherapy. Patients with progressive disease received escalating doses twice weekly. Treatment of the accrued 26 patients (10 colorectal cancer (CRC), 6 soft tissue sarcoma (STS), 5 melanoma (MM), 5 others) was well tolerated without substance-related grade 3 or 4 toxicities. Grade 1/2 toxicities were predominantly injection site reactions. Aviscumine lacked dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) up to a maximal dose of 10 ng/kg. An increase of interleukin-1 beta and interferon-gamma from baseline was seen in the patient's plasma between the 1st and 11th injection. Highest release of both cytokines was in the dose range of 4-5.9 ng/kg. Interferon-gamma was not detected after doses higher than 6 ng/kg. Eight patients (5 CRC, 1 MM, 1 STS, 1 RCC) had disease stabilisation for 79-250 days (median122 days) associated with an increase of interleukin (IL)-1 beta and interferon (IFN)-gamma. Aviscumine was well tolerated and appeared to possess clinical activity at a biologically active dose between 4 and 6 ng/kg.

Background: In a previous randomised EORTC study on adjuvant dibromodulcitol (DBD) and bichloroethylnitrosourea (BCNU) in adults with glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) and anaplastic astrocytoma (AA), a clinically significant trend towards a longer overall survival (OS) and a progression-free survival (PFS) was observed in the subgroup of AA. The aim of the present study was to test this adjuvant regimen in a larger number of AA patients., Methods: Continuation of the previous phase III trial for newly diagnosed AA according to the local pathologist. Patients were randomised to either radiotherapy only or to radiotherapy in combination with BCNU on day 2 and weekly DBD, followed by adjuvant DBD and BCNU in cycles of six weeks for a maximum total treatment duration of one year. OS was the primary end-point., Results: Patients (193 ) with newly diagnosed AA according to local pathological assessment were randomised to radiotherapy (RT) alone (n=99), or to RT plus DBD/BCNU (n=94); 12 patients were considered not eligible. At central pathology review, over half (53%) of the locally diagnosed AA cases could not be confirmed. On intent-to-treat analysis, no statistically significant differences in OS (p=0.111) and PFS (p=0.087) were observed, median OS after RT was only 23.9 months 95% confidence interval (CI), [18.4-34.0] after RT plus DBD/BCNU 27.3 months 95% CI [21.4-46.8]., Conclusion: No statistically significant improvement in survival was observed after BCNU/DBD adjuvant chemotherapy in AA patients. The trend towards improved survival is consistent with previous reports. Central pathology review of grade 3 tumours remains crucial.

Many clinicians often do not feel comfortable with the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM). This article reviews its implementation, showing the characteristics, advantages and limitations of this method in Phase I studies as an alternative to the classical 'Fibonacci' escalation schema. A two center, dose escalation phase I study of rViscumin was carried out. Thirty-seven patients were included at 14 different dose-levels (10 to 6400 ng/kg). The complete clinical results are presented elsewhere. A 2-step CRM design enables one to speed-up the study and most importantly to obtain an accurate estimate of the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Different management issues related to a multicenter study are illustrated and we show how the method can go wrong when severe toxicity, or dose limiting toxicity (DLT), is not considered by the clinician as being sufficient to limit dose escalation (here a grade 3 asthenia related to the drug). This would have affected any dose finding methods. We believe that CRM is a good alternative to the standard method from both a statistical and a practical point of view but further methodological research is necessary to address the issues related to the composite nature of the endpoint.