Search

Background/aims: The increasing cost of the drug development process has seen interest in the use of adaptive trial designs grow substantially. Accordingly, much research has been conducted to identify barriers to increasing the use of adaptive designs in practice. Several articles have argued that the availability of user-friendly software will be an important step in making adaptive designs easier to implement. Therefore, we present a review of the current state of software availability for adaptive trial design. Methods: We review articles from 31 journals published in 2013–2017 that relate to methodology for adaptive trials to assess how often code and software for implementing novel adaptive designs is made available at the time of publication. We contrast our findings against these journals’ policies on code distribution. We also search popular code repositories, such as Comprehensive R Archive Network and GitHub, to identify further existing user-contributed software for adaptive designs. From this, we are able to direct interested parties toward solutions for their problem of interest. Results: Only 30% of included articles made their code available in some form. In many instances, articles published in journals that had mandatory requirements on code provision still did not make code available. There are several areas in which available software is currently limited or saturated. In particular, many packages are available to address group sequential design, but comparatively little code is present in the public domain to determine biomarker-guided adaptive designs. Conclusions: There is much room for improvement in the provision of software alongside adaptive design publications. In addition, while progress has been made, well-established software for various types of trial adaptation remains sparsely available.

Background: The SCOPE-1 study tested the role of adding cetuximab to conventional definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT), and\ud demonstrated greater toxicity and worse survival outcomes. We present the long-term outcomes and patterns of recurrence.\ud Methods: SCOPE-1 was a phase II/III trial in which patients were randomised to cisplatin 60mgm�2 (day 1) and capecitabine\ud 625mgm�2 bd (days 1–21) for four cycles þ/� cetuximab 400mgm�2 day 1 then by 250mgm�2 weekly. Radiotherapy\ud consisted of 50 Gy/25# given concurrently with cycles 3 and 4. Recruitment was between February 2008 and February 2012, when\ud the IDMC recommended closure on the basis of futility.\ud Results: About 258 patients (dCRT¼129; dCRTþcetuximab (dCRTþC)¼129) were recruited from 36 centres. About 72.9%\ud (n¼188) had squamous cell histology. The median follow-up (IQR) was 46.2 (35.9–48.3) months for surviving patients. The median\ud overall survival (OS; months; 95% CI) was 34.5 (24.7–42.3) in dCRT and 24.7 (18.6–31.3) in dCRTþC (hazard ratio (HR)¼1.25, 95%\ud CIs: 0.93–1.69, P¼0.137). Median progression-free survival (PFS; months; 95% CI) was 24.1 (15.3–29.9) and 15.9 (10.7–20.8) months,\ud respectively (HR¼1.28, 95% CIs: 0.94–1.75; P¼0.114). On multivariable analysis only earlier stage, full-dose RT, and higher\ud cisplatin dose intensity were associated with improved OS.\ud Conclusions: The mature analysis demonstrates that the dCRT regimen used in the study provided useful survival outcomes\ud despite its use in patients who were largely unfit for surgery or who had inoperable disease. Given the competing risk of systemic\ud and local failure, future studies should continue to focus on enhancing local control as well as optimising systemic therapy.

Gemcitabine is a key drug for the treatment of pancreatic cancer; however, with its limitation in clinical benefits, the development of another potent therapeutic is necessary. Vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 is an essential target for tumor angiogenesis, and we have conducted a phase I clinical trial using gemcitabine and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 peptide (elpamotide). Based on the promising results of this phase I trial, a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind phase II/III clinical trial has been carried out for pancreatic cancer. The eligibility criteria included locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. Patients were assigned to either the Active group (elpamotide + gemcitabine) or Placebo group (placebo + gemcitabine) in a 2:1 ratio by the dynamic allocation method. The primary endpoint was overall survival. The Harrington–Fleming test was applied to the statistical analysis in this study to evaluate the time-lagged effect of immunotherapy appropriately. A total of 153 patients (Active group, n = 100; Placebo group, n = 53) were included in the analysis. No statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the prolongation of overall survival (Harrington–Fleming P-value, 0.918; log–rank P-value, 0.897; hazard ratio, 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.486–1.557). Median survival time was 8.36 months (95% CI, 7.46–10.18) for the Active group and 8.54 months (95% CI, 7.33–10.84) for the Placebo group. The toxicity observed in both groups was manageable. Combination therapy of elpamotide with gemcitabine was well tolerated. Despite the lack of benefit in overall survival, subgroup analysis suggested that the patients who experienced severe injection site reaction, such as ulceration and erosion, might have better survival. Phase II/III trial of elpamotide was performed to evaluate the clinical effect for advanced pancreatic cancer. Despite the lack of benefit in OS, sub-group analysis suggested that the patients with severe ISR might have better survival.