Search

PURPOSE Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 ( P = .028) and 12 ( P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) ( P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks ( P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy ( P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS ( P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system.In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D).From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment.eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

Background\ud Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for anal cancer. Following national UK implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), this prospective, national cohort evaluates the one-year oncological outcomes and patient-reported toxicity outcomes (PRO) after treatment.\ud Materials and methods\ud A national cohort of UK cancer centers implementing IMRT was carried out between February to July 2015. Cancer centers provided data on oncological outcomes, including survival, and disease and colostomy status at one-year. EORTC-QLQ core (C30) and colorectal (CR29) questionnaires were completed at baseline and one-year followup. The PRO scores at baseline and one year were compared.\ud Results\ud 40 UK Cancer Centers returned data with a total of 187 patients included in the analysis. 92% received mitomycin with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. One-year overall survival was 94%; 84% were disease-free and 86% colostomy-free at one-year followup. At one year, PRO results found significant improvements in buttock pain, blood and mucus in stools, pain, constipation, appetite loss, and health anxiety compared to baseline. No significant deteriorations were reported in diarrhea, bowel frequency, and flatulence. Urinary symptom scores were low at one year. Moderate impotence symptoms at baseline remained at one year, and a moderate deterioration in dyspareunia reported.\ud Conclusions\ud With national anal cancer IMRT implementation, at this early pre-defined time point, one-year oncological outcomes were reassuring and resulted in good disease-related symptom control. one-year symptomatic complications following CRT for anal cancer using IMRT techniques appear to be relatively mild. These PRO results provide a basis to benchmark future studies.

ObjectivesStereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible.Design and methodsSABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates.ResultsBetween July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3.ConclusionsWe conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

Introduction Metastatic bone disease (MBD) carries significant morbidity for patients with cancer. MBD from malignant melanoma (MM) is understudied. We examined the characteristics, morbidity, management and outcome of MBD in patients with MM. Methods Patients with metastatic MM managed at two referral cancer centres in England were identified. Those with bone metastases (BMs) were selected. Patient and disease characteristics including skeletal related events (SREs) were extracted from medical records. The Kaplan Meier method was used to calculate median survival. Results Five hundred and eighteen patients with metastatic MM were managed between years 2000 and 2008. Eighty nine (17.2%) patients had BMs and are the subject of this study. Median age at diagnosis was 53 years and 55% were males. BMs were identified at the time of diagnosis of metastatic disease in 68.5% patients. Sixty-six (74.2%) had multiple bone lesions and 80.9% had axial skeleton involvement. One hundred and twenty nine skeletal related events occurred in 59 (66.3%) patients (50 radiotherapy, 28 hypercalcaemia, 20 bone fractures, 18 spinal cord compression and 13 orthopaedic surgery). The annual skeletal morbidity rate was 2.5. Median survival from diagnosis of BMs was 17.3 weeks and was 5.6 weeks from the first episode of hypercalcaemia. Conclusion MBD affects a clinically important proportion (17.2%) of patients with metastatic MM. It carries a substantial morbidity and mortality exceeding that caused by BMs from breast and prostate cancer. These patients should receive the currently licensed bone modifying agents and should be included in clinical trials addressing MBD., Highlights • We examined the frequency, morbidity and outcome of patients with BMs form MM. • Of 518 patients identified with metastatic MM, 17.2% (n = 89) developed BMs. • Of 89 patients with BM, 74.2% had multiple bone lesions. • 66.3% of patients with BMs developed one or more skeletal related events. • Median survival from development of BMs is very short (17.3 weeks).

ARCTIC was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). Conventional frontline therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). The trial hypothesized that including mitoxantrone with low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) would be non-inferior to FCR. A total of 200 patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to IWCLL criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity, safety and cost-effectiveness. The trial closed following a pre-planned interim analysis. At final analysis, CR rates were 76 FCR vs 55% FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio: 0.37; 95% confidence interval: 0.19-0.73). MRD-negativity rates were 54 FCR vs 44% FCM-miniR. More participants experienced serious adverse reactions with FCM-miniR (49%) compared to FCR (41%). There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon. In summary, FCM-miniR is less well tolerated than FCR with an inferior response and MRD-negativity rate and increased toxicity, and will not be taken forward into a confirmatory trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields high response rates compared to historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

Introduction UK Neuro-Oncologists and multidisciplinary colleagues are developing one of the first randomised clinical trials of proton beam radiotherapy(PBT) to compare quality of life(QOL), cognitive function and other late effects in adults with good prognosis glioma following either PBT or photon radiotherapy. The feasibility of running randomised studies with PBT is an important consideration, particularly in respect of participants’ views of a randomised design requiring treatment at national centres. We sought patient and carer engagement on our proposals to ensure we incorporate their views. Methods To explore these issues, we invited patients who had previously completed radiotherapy for oligodendroglioma and their carers to attend a focus group in Manchester in November 2018. Fifteen participants attended. We sought views on our trial proposal through small group discussions centred around 5 questions, led and facilitated by neuro-oncologists, a research radiographer, neuro-psychologist and statistician. Results Participants strongly endorsed the trial proposal and positively highlighted the opportunity to access PBT within a clinical trial and the group recognised and supported the need for randomisation and stated this should be 1:1. Patients disliked some traditional terminology such as ‘trial’ and ‘neurocognitive tests’ and preferred ‘research study’ and ‘neurocognitive assessments’. Patient and carers expressed the need for careful consideration of issues around travel and accommodation during PBT away from home. Interestingly, participants considered that standard QOL questionnaires fail to address some important areas reflecting daily wellbeing. Conclusion We acknowledge and will now incorporate these important patient and carer observations to strengthen our study and add validity to the key study endpoints.

Background The PLATO platform consists of 3 anal cancer trials (ACT) across the loco-regional disease spectrum (ACT3, 4 and 5). ACT5 tests the benefit of RT dose escalation using intensity modulated RT (IMRT) in locally advanced disease. We planned to analyse treatment compliance, acute toxicity and patient reported outcomes (PROs) on the first 60 patients (pts) prior to the phase II/III trial (final target n = 640) to evaluate the need for protocol modifications. Methods Pts with T2 N1-3, T3-4 N any M0 squamous cancer of the anus entered a prospective, multi-centre, open-labelled randomised 3-arm trial, and received 28 fractions (F) of IMRT at total standard dose of 53.2Gy or escalated to 58.8Gy or 61.6Gy to the gross tumour (40Gy in 28F elective nodal irradiation in all arms). All pts received concurrent mitomycin 12mg/m2 day 1 and capecitabine (CAP) 825mg/m2 twice daily (week days) or 5-fluorouracil 1000mg/m2 days 1-4 and 29-32. Compliance to RT (no delay >3 days due to toxicity) and chemotherapy, worst acute toxicity during treatment (CTCAEv4) and PROs up to 6 months (EORTC-QLQ C30 and ANL27) were analysed. Results 60 pts were enrolled from 12 UK sites (53.2Gy n = 19; 58.8Gy n = 21; 61.6Gy n = 20). 78% female, median age 61 years (36 -77), 67% T2/3 and 28% ECOG PS1. All pts received planned RT dose with no delays >3days. Chemotherapy (5FU n = 18; CAP n = 42) modifications were: 8.3% (n = 5) overall dose reductions and 35% (n = 15) temporary CAP omissions (range 1-5 days). Pts had acceptable acute toxicity/PROs for both experimental arms not requiring protocol modification. Worst reported CTCAE toxicity grade (G) per pt: G2 51.7% (n = 31), G3 47.6% (n = 28, 19 radiation dermatitis, 7 diarrhoea), G4 1.7% (n = 1; thrombocytopenia). PRO compliance was 86.7% at 6 months. Pre-specified PRO items on quality of life, pain, and bowel toxicity were worst in final treatment week, improving by 6 weeks and returned to baseline or better by 6 months. Conclusions RT dose intensification appears safe with acceptable compliance, acute toxicity and PROs at 6 months. Data Monitoring Committee approved phase II with no treatment schedule changes but included a 6 month clinician toxicity assessment. Phase II will open in June 2019.

Objective: Treat‐to‐target approaches have proved to be effective in rheumatoid arthritis, but have not been studied in psoriatic arthritis (PsA). This study was undertaken to examine the cost‐effectiveness of tight control (TC) of inflammation in early PsA compared to standard care.\ud \ud \ud \ud Methods: Cost‐effectiveness analyses were undertaken alongside a UK‐based, open‐label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Taking the perspective of the health care sector, effectiveness was measured using the 3‐level EuroQol 5‐domain, which allows for the calculation of quality‐adjusted life‐years (QALYs). Incremental cost‐effectiveness ratios (ICERs) are presented, which represent the additional cost per QALY gained over a 48‐week time horizon. Sensitivity analyses are presented assessing the impact of variations in the analytical approach and assumptions on the cost‐effectiveness estimates.\ud \ud \ud \ud Results: The mean cost and QALYs were higher in the TC group: £4,198 versus £2,000 and 0.602 versus 0.561. These values yielded an ICER of £53,948 per QALY. Bootstrapped uncertainty analysis suggests that the TC has a 0.07 probability of being cost‐effective at a £20,000 threshold. Stratified analysis suggests that with certain costs being controlled, an ICER of £24,639 can be calculated for patients with a higher degree of disease severity.\ud \ud \ud \ud Conclusion: A tight control strategy to treat PsA is an effective intervention in the treatment pathway; however, this study does not find tight control to be cost‐effective in most analyses. Lower drug prices, targeting polyarthritis patients, or reducing the frequency of rheumatology visits may improve value for money metrics in future studies.

BackgroundThe conventional frontline therapy for fit patients with chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Rituximab (Mabthera®, Roche Products Ltd) targets the CD20 antigen, which is expressed at low levels in CLL. The standard dose of rituximab in CLL (375 mg/m2in cycle 1 and 500 mg/m2in cycles 2–6) was selected based on toxicity data only. Small doses of rituximab (as low as 20 mg) have biological activity in CLL, with an immediate reduction in circulating CLL cells and down-regulation of CD20. Phase II trials had suggested improved efficacy with the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR. The key assumption for the Attenuated dose Rituximab with ChemoTherapy In CLL (ARCTIC) trial was that the addition of mitoxantrone to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and low-dose rituximab would be more effective than conventional FCR.ObjectivesTo assess whether fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone and low-dose rituximab (FCM-miniR) (100 mg of rituximab per cycle) was non-inferior to FCR in frontline CLL. Complete response (CR) rate was the primary end point, with the secondary end points being progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, eradication of minimal residual disease (MRD), safety and cost-effectiveness.DesignARCTIC was a UK multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, Phase IIB non-inferiority trial in previously untreated CLL. A total of 206 patients with previously untreated CLL who required treatment, according to the International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukaemia criteria, were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR. There was an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee (DMEC) with a pre-planned interim efficacy assessment on 103 participants.ResultsThe DMEC’s interim analysis led to early trial closure. Although the response rates in both arms were higher than anticipated, FCM-miniR had a lower CR rate than FCR. This was partly attributable to the higher toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. A total of 100 participants completed FCR, 79 completed FCM-miniR and 21 commenced FCM-miniR but switched to FCR following DMEC recommendations. The CR rate for participants receiving FCR was 76%, compared with 55% for FCM-miniR (adjusted odds ratio 0.37; 95% confidence interval 0.19 to 0.73). Key secondary end points also showed that FCR was superior, with more participants achieving MRD negativity (57% for FCR vs. 46% for FCM-miniR). More participants experienced a serious adverse reaction with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (50% vs. 41%). At a median of 37.3 months’ follow-up, the PFS and OS rates are good compared with previous studies, with no significant difference between the treatment arms. The economic analysis indicates that because FCM-miniR is less effective than FCR, FCM-miniR is not expected to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon, producing a mean cost-saving of –£7723, a quality-adjusted life-year loss of –0.73 and a resulting incremental net monetary loss of –£6780.ConclusionsFCM-miniR is less well tolerated, with poorer response rates, than FCR, partly owing to the additional toxicity associated with mitoxantrone. In view of this, FCM-miniR will not be taken forward into a larger definitive Phase III trial. The trial demonstrated that oral FCR yields extremely high response rates compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.Future workWe shall compare the results of ARCTIC with those of the ADMIRE (Does the ADdition of Mitoxantrone Improve Response to FCR chemotherapy in patients with CLL?) trial, which compared FCR with FCM-R to assess the efficacy of low- versus standard-dose rituximab, allowing for the toxicity associated with mitoxantrone.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN16544962.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Purpose Multiple phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer have reported promising efficacy signals, but these have not translated into improved cancer outcomes in phase 3 trials. Improvements in phase 2 trial design are needed to reduce these false-positive signals. This systematic review evaluated the design of phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods and Materials The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification from 2004 to 2016. Trial clinical design and outcomes were assessed, with statistical design and compliance rated using a previously published system. Multivariable meta-regression analysis of pathologic complete response (pCR) was conducted. Results We identified 92 eligible trials. Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II and III equivalent disease were eligible in 87 trials (94.6%). In 43 trials (46.7%), local staging on magnetic resonance imaging was mandated. Only 12 trials (13.0%) were randomized, with 8 having a standard-treatment control arm. Just 51 trials (55.4%) described their statistical design, with 21 trials (22.8%) failing to report their sample size derivation. Most trials (n=84, 91.3%) defined a primary endpoint, but 15 different primary endpoints were used. All trials reported pCR rates. Only 38 trials (41.3%) adequately reported trial statistical design and compliance. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled pCR rate of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, 15.7%-19.4%) across treatment arms of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification and substantial heterogeneity among the reported effect sizes (I2 = 55.3%, P Conclusions Improvement in the design of future phase 2 rectal cancer trials is urgently required. A significant increase in randomized trials is essential to overcome selection bias and determine novel schedules suitable for phase 3 testing. This systematic review provides key recommendations to guide future treatment intensification trial design in rectal cancer.

Background Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) has seen a substantial improvement over the last few years. Combination immunochemotherapy, such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), is now standard first-line therapy. However, the majority of patients relapse and require further therapy, and so new, effective, targeted therapies that improve remission rates, reduce relapses, and have fewer side effects, are required. The FLAIR trial will assess whether ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) is superior to FCR in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods/design FLAIR is a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial in patients with previously untreated CLL. A total of 754 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive standard therapy with FCR or IR. Participants randomised to FCR will receive a maximum of six 28-day treatment cycles. Participants randomised to IR will receive six 28-day cycles of rituximab, and ibrutinib taken daily for 6 years until minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been recorded for the same amount of time as it took to become MRD negative, or until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS according to the International Workshop on CLL (IWCLL) criteria. Secondary endpoints include: overall survival; proportion of participants with undetectable MRD; response to therapy by IWCLL criteria; safety and toxicity; health-related quality of life (QoL); and cost-effectiveness. Discussion The trial aims to provide evidence for the future first-line treatment of CLL patients by assessing whether IR is superior to FCR in terms of PFS, and whether toxicity rates are favourable. Trial registration ISRCTN01844152. Registered on 8 August 2014, EudraCT number 2013-001944-76. Registered on 26 April 2013. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2138-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose/Objective(s) Randomized controlled trials for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus have been successfully performed, despite the rarity of the disease. The RTOG 9811 and ACT2 trials demonstrated no improvement in cancer outcomes when neoadjuvant or adjuvant cisplatin 5FU chemotherapy was used. To capture as many anal cancer patients as possible in future clinical trials, we developed an umbrella of trials testing efficacy and acceptable morbidity across different loco-regional risk strata. Materials/Methods We formed a network of UK and international multi-disciplinary trialists and identified the following priorities:- i] the need for national consensus guidance for the introduction of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) based on the successful principles and fractionation used in the ACT2 protocol prior to future trials; ii] to evaluate a strategy using selective chemoradiation therapy (CRT) after local excision of anal margin tumors; iii] to evaluate reduced dose CRT to the primary tumor in order to limit late effects whilst maintaining elective nodal irradiation in early stage disease; iv] to evaluate dose escalated CRT in locally advanced T3/4 and N+ stage disease. Results The PLATO (personalizing radiotherapy dose in anal cancer) umbrella trial comprising of the ACT3, 4 and 5 trials is funded by Cancer Research UK and is due to commence recruitment in Q3 2016.The ACT 3 trial (n = 90) is a non-randomized phase II study that will evaluate a strategy of local excision for T1N0 anal margin tumors with selective postoperative involved field CRT using 41.4 Gy in 23 fractions (F) and concurrent capecitabine reserved for patients with margins

ADMIRE was a multicenter, randomized-controlled, open, phase IIB superiority trial in previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Conventional front-line therapy in fit patients is fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR). Initial evidence from non-randomized phase II trials suggested that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR (FCM-R) improved remission rates. Two hundred and fifteen patients were recruited to assess the primary end point of complete remission (CR) rates according to International Workshop on Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia criteria. Secondary end points were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate, minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity and safety. At final analysis, CR rates were 69.8 FCR vs 69.3% FCM-R (adjusted odds ratio (OR): 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI): (0.53-1.79), P=0.932). MRD-negativity rates were 59.3 FCR vs 50.5% FCM-R (adjusted OR: 0.70; 95% CI: (0.39-1.26), P=0.231). During treatment, 60.0% (n=129) of participants received granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as secondary prophylaxis for neutropenia, a lower proportion on FCR compared with FCM-R (56.1 vs 63.9%). The toxicity of both regimens was acceptable. There are no significant differences between the treatment groups for PFS and OS. The trial demonstrated that the addition of mitoxantrone to FCR did not increase the depth of response. Oral FCR was well tolerated and resulted in impressive responses in terms of CR rates and MRD negativity compared with historical series with intravenous chemotherapy.

Stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is potentially curable, and surgery is considered to be the standard of care for patients with good performance status and minimal co-morbidity. However, a significant proportion of patients with stage I NSCLC have a poorer performance status and significant medical co-morbidity that make them at higher risk of morbidity and mortality from surgery. Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), which uses modern radiotherapeutic techniques to deliver large doses of radiation, has shown superiority over conventional radiotherapy in terms of local control and toxicity and is a standard of care for patients with stage I NSCLC who are at too high risk for surgery. However, it is not known whether surgery or SABR is the most effective in patients with stage I NSCLC who are suitable for surgery but are less fit and at higher risk surgical complications. Previous randomised studies have failed to recruit in this setting, and therefore, a feasibility study is required to see whether a full randomised control trial would be possible. SABRTooth is a UK-based, multi-centre, open-label, two-group individually (1:1) randomised controlled feasibility study in patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk from surgical resection. The study will assess the feasibility of conducting a definitive large-scale phase III trial. The primary objective is to assess recruitment rates to provide evidence that, when scaled up, recruitment to a large phase III trial would be possible; the target recruitment being 54 patients in total, over a 21-month period. There are multiple secondary and exploratory objectives designed to explore the optimum recruitment and data collection strategies to help optimise the design of a future phase III trial. To know whether SABR is a better, equivalent or inferior alternative to surgery for higher risk patients is a key question in lung cancer. Other studies comparing SABR to surgery have closed early due to poor recruitment, and therefore, the SABRTooth feasibility study has been designed around the UK National Health Service (NHS) cancer pathway incorporating many design features in order to maximise recruitment for a future definitive phase III trial. controlled-trials.com ISRCTN13029788

Introduction FCR improves PFS and OS in CLL. Previous non-randomised Phase II trials suggest adding mitoxantrone to FCR (FCM-R) improves outcomes. The rituximab dose in CLL was inferred from lymphoma but in CLL even low doses of rituximab lead to the loss of CD20 expression (“shaving”) suggesting that low dose rituximab with chemotherapy may be effective. Aims The primary objective was to assess whether the CR rate to FCM-miniR was not inferior to FCR. Secondary objectives were MRD eradication, overall response rates and safety. Late endpoints (not reported) were PFS, OS and MRD relapse. Methods ARCTIC was a phase IIB, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial in previously untreated CLL performed in 34 UK centres. 206 patients were to be randomised to FCR or FCM-miniR with an 80% power to show that FCM-miniR did not lead to 10% worse CR rates compared to FCR. A formal interim analysis on the primary endpoint was planned after 103 patients. The schedule for oral FCR was equivalent to iv FCR with iv rituximab given on Day 1 (375mg/m2 Cycle 1; 500mg/m2 Cycles 2-6), oral fludarabine (24mg/m2/day for 5 days; Days 1-5) and oral cyclophosphamide (150mg/m2/day for 5 days; Days 1-5). FCM-miniR included intravenous mitoxantrone (6mg/m2/day) and 100mg rituximab on Day 1 of 6 cycles given 28 days apart. Patients with neutropenia delaying therapy received G-CSF (lenograstim 263mcg/day; Days 7-13) on all remaining cycles. Prophylaxis with co-trimoxazole and acyclovir was used. Results 200 patients were recruited, 100 to each arm. The interim analysis after 103 patients indicated that although the CR rate to FCM-miniR was similar to predicted it was inferior to FCR. The independent DMC advised that the trial would not show non-inferiority for FCM-miniR and recruitment was stopped. A further 97 patients were recruited up to the interim analysis. 21 patients still receiving FCM-miniR were advised to cross-over to FCR. 100 patients received FCR, 79 FCM-miniR and 21 patients randomised to FCM-miniR crossed over to FCR. The treatment arms were well balanced for the following: median age 63 (36-80) and 20% (n=40) over 70; 67.5% male; 17% prog. stage A, 47% stage B and 35.5% stage C. 33.5% had a creatinine clearance under 70ml/min. 60% (87/146) had unmutated Ig genes; 4% (6/164) 17p deletion; and 15% (26/168) 11q deletion. More 11q del patients were randomised to FCM-miniR (15 vs 7). 29.5% (59/200) discontinued therapy early including 30% (n=30) FCR and 35.4% (n=28) FCM-miniR. 141 (70.5%) completed 6 cycles. 93 (49%) of 189 received G-CSF - more with FCM-miniR compared with FCR (54% vs 44%). 117 (58.5%) patients experienced a dose modification; 57% for FCR and 62% for FCM-miniR; the most common being dose delay in 47% of patients. 181 SAE's were reported from 104 patients; 79 events from 49% (49/100) receiving FCR, 80 from 58% (46/79) receiving FCM-miniR and 47% (9/22) cross-over patients. 62.5% of related SAE's were infectious. 3 patients died due to an SAE, 1 FCR and 2 FCM-miniR. We report only the 179 intention-to-treat patients who did not cross-over. To date 146 of 179 patients (82%) have undergone independent central review. 70% (102/146) achieved a CR or CRi; 78% (62/79) FCR and 60% (40/67) FCM-miniR. 13/22 (59%) patients with a baseline creatinine clearance of Conclusion ARCTIC was stopped prematurely as it was clear that the arm containing mitoxantrone and low dose rituximab would not be non-inferior to FCR. However both FCR and FCM-miniR performed well with CR rates of 78% and 60% respectively. This compares favourably to CR rates of 38% for FC in LRF CLL4 Trial and 44% for FCR in the GCLLSG CLL8 Trial. MRD was undetectable in 55% of patients receiving FCR and 46% for FCM-miniR. Oral FCR in front-line CLL results in extremely high CR rates and the eradication of detectable MRD in the majority. Low dose rituximab (100mg per cycle; 600mg total dose compared to 2875mg/m2 for standard FCR) in combination with FCM appears to be effective although FCM-miniR is inferior to full dose FCR. However there is more toxicity associated with the addition of mitoxantrone confounding the comparison of rituximab doses. Disclosures: Hillmen: Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche Pharmaceuticals: Honoraria, Research Funding; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Honoraria. Off Label Use: The use of ofatumumab in combination with chlorambucil in previously untreated CLL. The reported trial will support the extension of the ofatumumab licence. Schuh:GSK: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Mundipharma: Honoraria.

Background: The detection of minimal residual disease (MRD) in CLL using a 0.01% cut-off is an independent predictor of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) after chemo-immunotherapy. There are several new treatments available and using MRD as a trial endpoint could greatly speed up the identification of the best treatment approaches. MRD assessments can be made in the peripheral blood (PB) or bone marrow (BM) but there is substantial variation in the extent to which different treatments deplete disease in the PB, BM, and nodal compartments. Aims: To compare MRD levels in the PB & BM during/after different treatment approaches to determine differential compartment effects and evaluate the impact on predicting PFS/OS. Methods: The level of residual disease was determined using multi-parameter flow cytometry according to ERIC consensus protocols with a limit of quantification of 10-4 / 0.01% or better; "+" and "-" denotes ≥0.01% and Results: The MRD level in PB & BM samples taken at the same time, either during or within 6 months of treatment, was available in 556 cases of which 85 (15%) showed discordant results at the 0.01% threshold. The frequency of discrepant PB & BM MRD levels varied across treatment and patient groups (table 1). In 322 evaluable cases from the ADMIRE/ARCTIC trials at 3 months after the end FCR-based therapy, 66/322 were BM+PB-, representing 54% of the total MRD+ cases. Discrepant results with >1 log difference between PB & BM MRD levels were most common in refractory patients treated with alemtuzumab. There were no discrepant results in patients undergoing idelalisib or ibrutinib monotherapy although all patients have ≥0.01% MRD to date. A small compartment effect was apparent in patients treated with a combination of ibrutinib and obinutuzumab but the relative difference in PB vs. BM disease level appears to be approximately half that of rituximab in combination with chemotherapy. To determine whether the discrepant results affect the ability of MRD status to predict outcome, we compared the PFS according to BM & PB MRD status. In the CLL202 (fludarabine + alemtuzumab) trial the PFS for BM+PB- cases was similar to BM+PB+ cases (median PFS was 1.6 and 6.5 months respectively) and both were substantially shorter than for BM-PB- cases (median PFS 44.7 months, Log-rank P66 months vs. 54 months vs. 33 months for BM-PB- vs. BM+PB- vs. BM+PB+ respectively, Log-rank P1% MRD in the PB also had >1% disease in the BM. Summary/Conclusion: The compartment effect varies greatly according to patient group and treatment. Rituximab typically results in 0.7log lower disease in the PB compared to BM. Patients on BCR-pathway inhibitors have similar levels of disease in PB & BM even in combination with obinutuzumab. This suggests either that BCR-pathway inhibitors counteract the compartment effects of anti-CD20 antibody treatment, or that obinutuzumab is more effective in depleting bone marrow disease than rituximab. Peripheral blood MRD status may be appropriate for predicting outcome in some settings but underestimates MRD level in a substantial proportion of patients. Bone marrow remains the most sensitive and reliable source for MRD detection but is not required if there is >1% MRD in the blood. Evaluating the compartment effect of specific treatment combinations will help to identify approaches to achieve maximal MRD response using peripheral blood monitoring. Table 1 Compartment effect - difference in MRD detection in PB vs. BM samples across different trials. * median log difference only calculated in cases with >0.01% MRD in both PB & BM so may underestimate compartment effect. Table 1. Compartment effect - difference in MRD detection in PB vs. BM samples across different trials. / * median log difference only calculated in cases with >0.01% MRD in both PB & BM so may underestimate compartment effect. Disclosures Rawstron: AbbVie: Honoraria; Roche: Honoraria; Celegene: Honoraria; Janssen: Research Funding; BD Biosciences: Other: Remuneration; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Genzyme: Honoraria; GlaxoSmithKline: Honoraria. Munir:Alexion pharmaceuticals: Honoraria. Brock:AstraZeneca: Equity Ownership; GlaxoSmithKline: Equity Ownership. Hillmen:Pharmacyclics: Research Funding; Janssen: Honoraria, Research Funding; Roche: Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Abbvie: Research Funding.

Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA) is estimated to occur in 10-15% of people with psoriasis and accounts for 13% of people attending early arthritis clinics. With an increasing awareness of the poor outcomes associated with PsA and the availability of new effective, but costly, treatments, there is an urgent need to research the optimal treatment for patients with PsA. The aim of the TICOPA study is to establish whether, in treatment naive early PsA patients, “tight control” intensive management with protocol driven therapies and pre-defined objective targets for treatment can improve clinical outcome compared to standard care alone. TICOPA is a UK multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled, parallel group trial of 206 patients with early PsA. Patients will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive either standard care (12 weekly review) or intensive management (4 weekly review) for a period of 48 weeks. Patients assigned to the intensive management group will follow a strict treatment protocol whereby dose continuation/escalation is determined through the objective assessment of the minimal disease activity (MDA) criteria. Patients assigned to the standard care group will have treatment prescribed as felt appropriate by the treating clinician, with no set protocol. The primary objective of the trial is to compare intensive management with standard care in terms of the proportion of patients achieving an ACR 20 response at 48 weeks post-randomisation, in order to determine whether intensive management has superior clinical efficacy. Key secondary outcomes include ACR 50 and 70, PASI 75 and X-ray Van der Heijde score at 48 weeks post-randomisation along with cost-effectiveness at 12, 24 and 28 weeks. The TICOPA trial will provide direct evidence as to whether the use of early and intensive treatment in PsA in routine clinical care leads to an improvement in patients’ disease activity and a reduction in radiological joint damage. ISRCTN30147736 , NCT01106079

Background Over recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks. Methods/Design The STAR trial is an NIHR HTA-funded UK pragmatic randomised phase II/III clinical trial in the first-line treatment of advanced RCC. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either a sunitinib CCS or a DFIS. The overall aim of the trial is to determine whether a DFIS is non-inferior, in terms of 2-year overall survival (OS) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) (averaged over treatment and follow up), compared to a CCS. The QALY primary endpoint was selected to assess whether any detriment in terms of OS could be balanced with improvements in quality of life (QoL). This is a complex trial with a number of design challenges, and to address these issues a feasibility stage is incorporated into the trial design. Predetermined recruitment (stage A) and efficacy (stage B) intermediary endpoints must be met to allow continuation to the overall phase III trial (stage C). An integral qualitative patient preference and understanding study will occur alongside the feasibility stage to investigate patients’ feelings regarding participation or non-participation in the trial. Discussion The optimal duration of continuing sunitinib in advanced RCC is unknown. Novel targeted therapies do not always have the same constraints to treatment duration as standard chemotherapeutic agents and currently there are no randomised data comparing different treatment durations. Incorporating planned treatment breaks has the potential to improve QoL and cost effectiveness, hopefully without significant detriment on OS, as has been demonstrated in other cancer types with other treatments. Trial Registration Controlled-trials.com ISRCTN 06473203

BACKGROUND: Minimal residual disease (MRD) in CLL is an independent predictor of progression-free and overall survival after chemo-immunotherapy. Data from the DCLLSG trials indicate that a high, intermediate and low risk of disease progression is seen in patients with >1%, 0.01-1%, or AIM: To apply the ERIC consensus 1-tube multiparameter MRD strategy prospectively in two UK clinical trials of FCR-based treatment (ADMIRE and ARCTIC) to determine the survival benefit per log depletion. METHODS: The level of residual disease was determined using multi-parameter flow cytometry according to the ERIC consensus protocol with a limit of quantification of 10-4 / 0.01% or better on 415 patients at 3 months after end of treatment. RESULTS: The level of MRD at end of treatment was a powerful predictor of PFS and OS independent of age, stage, IWCLL response, FISH and IGHV mutation status. Per log reduction in CLL level, the hazard of disease progression decreased by 33% (95%CI 27-38%) and the hazard of dying decreased by 22% (95%CI 13-29%). Although there were statistically significant improvements per log reduction, the DCLLSG 2-log model showed more meaningful differences in outcome over the period of follow-up. The median PFS for patients with >1% vs. 0.01-1% vs 1% MRD predicts equivalent or worse outcome than a clinical PR. PB MRD analysis at 18 months after randomisation (~1 year after treatment) was also strongly predictive of outcome: 98% of patients with CONCLUSIONS: Prospective enumeration of MRD using the ERIC consensus 1-tube multiparameter protocol confirms that MRD at end of treatment is a powerful independent predictor of progression-free and overall survival. Post-treatment follow-up using peripheral blood MRD could be more informative than clinic assessments because patients with 1% MRD at end of treatment in the peripheral blood have a similar outcome to those with a clinical PR and a bone marrow assessment is not informative in these cases. The level of MRD is highly informative with sequential improvements in outcome per log depletion. The DCLLSG 2-log categorisation (>1%, 0.01-1%, or 6yrs. Figure 1. the level of MRD in the bone marrow at 3 months after treatment is highly predictive of outcome with >1% MRD equating to 5yrs median PFS Figure 1. the level of MRD in the bone marrow at 3 months after treatment is highly predictive of outcome with >1% MRD equating to 5yrs median PFS Figure 2. sequential PB MRD analysis identifies patients with negligible risk of requiring treatment within the following 12 months. Figure 2. sequential PB MRD analysis identifies patients with negligible risk of requiring treatment within the following 12 months. Disclosures Rawstron: BD Biosciences: Patents & Royalties; Roche: Honoraria; Celgene: Honoraria; Abbvie: Honoraria; Gilead: Honoraria, Research Funding; Pharmacyclics: Research Funding. Gregory:Celgene: Honoraria; Janssen: Honoraria. Hillmen:Roche: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Novartis: Honoraria, Research Funding; GSK: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Janssen: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Gilead: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; AbbVie: Consultancy, Honoraria, Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding.

Skeletal metastases occur in around one third of patients with advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Skeletal involvement is commonly an aggressive, lytic process which causes substantial morbidity through skeletal complications and occurrence of skeletal related events (SREs). However, compared with bone metastases in breast and prostate cancer, there is a paucity of data relating to the demographics of bone metastases in RCC and their sequelae in terms of SREs and survival. The study population included all patients (N=803) with advanced or metastatic RCC treated in a tertiary centre serving a regional population of 2.6 million between 1998 and 2007. Demographic and survival data and information relating to metastatic disease were extracted from electronic records. Thirty-two percent (N=254) of the study population presented with (N=131) or later developed (N=123) bone metastases and 83% of these (N=210) also developed metastases elsewhere. The mean number of SREs experienced by the bone metastatic patients over the course of their disease was 2.4 and only 37 patients experienced no SRE. A high proportion of patients (80%) received radiotherapy for bone pain and there was a surprising and strikingly high incidence of spinal cord/nerve root compression, which was experienced by 28% patients. Although bisphosphonate use increased following the availability of zoledronic acid in 2004, approximately 50% patients with bone metastases did not receive bisphosphonate treatment. The skeletal morbidity rate (number of SREs per patient years at risk) was 1.0 and 1.4 for patients who received or did not receive bisphosphonates, respectively. The median survival following diagnosis of RCC was similar in patients who developed bone metastases (20.4 months) and those who did not (20.9 months). Median survival from diagnosis of metastases was 13.3 months for those who never developed bone metastases, 10.6 months for those who presented with them, 19.6 months for those who developed them later and 22.6 months for patients who had bone only metastases. This is the largest study to date focusing specifically on skeletal complications in RCC. A striking finding was the high incidence of spinal cord/nerve root compression and more research into this area is needed. Clearer, internationally accepted guidelines are recommended for the management of this patient group.