Search

Introduction: Proteasome inhibitors are the backbone of AL amyloidosis treatment - bortezomib being most widely used. Carfilzomib is a proteasome inhibitor licenced to treat multiple myeloma; autonomic and peripheral neuropathy are uncommon toxicities with carfilzomib. There is limited data on the use of carfilzomib in AL amyloidosis. Here, we report the results of a phase Ib dose-escalation study of Carfilzomib-Thalidomide-Dexamethasone (KTD) in relapsed/refractory AL amyloidosis., Results: The trial registered 11 patients from 6 UK centres from September 2017 to January 2019; 10 patients received at least one dose of trial treatment. 80 adverse events were reported from 10 patients in the 1 st three cycles. One patient experienced dose-limiting toxicity (acute kidney injury) at a dose of 45 mg/m 2, and another patient had a SAR (fever). Five patients experienced an AE ≥ grade 3. There were no haematologic, infectious, or cardiac AE ≥ grade 3. The overall haematological response rate (ORR) at the end of three cycles of treatment was 60%., Conclusion: Carfilzomib 45 mg/m 2 weekly can be safely given with thalidomide and dexamethasone. The efficacy and tolerability profile appears comparable to other agents in relapsed AL amyloidosis. These data provide a framework for further studies of carfilzomib combinations in AL amyloidosis.

Background: The prognosis for patients with poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-EP-NEC) is poor. A recognised first-line (1L) treatment for advanced disease is etoposide/platinum-based chemotherapy with no standard second-line (2L) treatment., Methods: Patients with histologically-confirmed PD-EP-NEC (Ki-67 > 20%; Grade 3) received IV liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) (70 mg/m 2 free base)/5-FU (2400 mg/m 2 )/folinic acid, Q14 days (ARM A), or IV docetaxel (75 mg/m 2 ), Q21 days (ARM B), as 2L therapy. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (80% power to demonstrate one-sided 95% lower confidence interval excluded 15% (target level of efficacy: 30%)). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), median PFS, overall survival (OS), toxicity and patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03837977)., Findings: Of 58 patients (29 each arm); 57% male, 90% ECOG PS 0/1, 10% PS 2, 89.7% Ki-67 ≥ 55%, primary site: 70.7%-gastrointestinal, 18.9%-other, 10.3%-unknown, 91.4%/6.9%/1.7% were resistant/sensitive/intolerant to 1L platinum-based treatment, respectively. The primary end-point of 6-month PFS rate was met by ARM A: 29.6% (lower 95% Confidence-Limit (CL) 15.7), but not by ARM B: 13.8% (lower 95%CL:4.9). ORR, median PFS and OS were 11.1% (95%CI:2.4-29.2) and 10.3% (95%CI:2.2-27.4%); 3 months (95%CI:2-6) and 2 months (95%CI:2-2); and 6 months (95%CI:3-10) and 6 months (95%CI:3-9) in ARMS A and B, respectively. Adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurred in 51.7% and 55.2% (1 and 6 discontinuations due to toxicity in ARMS A and B), respectively. QoL was maintained in ARM A, but not ARM B., Interpretation: nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid, but not docetaxel, met the primary endpoint, with manageable toxicity and maintained QoL, with no difference in OS. ORR and median PFS were similar in both arms. This study provides prospective efficacy, toxicity and QoL data in the 2L setting in a disease group of unmet need, and represents some of the strongest evidence available to recommend systemic treatment to these patients., Funding: Servier., Competing Interests: Mairéad G McNamara: has received research grant support from Servier, Ipsen, NuCana and Astra Zeneca. She has received travel and accommodation support from Advanced Accelerator Applications (UK and Ireland) Ltd, and Ipsen, and speaker honoraria from Advanced Accelerator Applications (UK and Ireland) Ltd.. She has served on advisory boards for Incyte and Astra Zeneca. Jayne Swain: reports grants and non-financial support from Servier, during the conduct of the study. Zoe Craig: reports grants and non-financial support from Servier, during the conduct of the study. Rohini Sharma: has received grant support from AAA, Incyte, Boston Scientific, Bayer and Terumo. She has received speaker honoraria from Roche and Esai. Olusola Faluyi: no conflicts of interest to declare. Jonathan Wadsley: reports grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca, grants and personal fees from Sanofi-Genzyme, speaker and advisory board honoraria from Astrazeneca, Celgene, Novartis, Ipsen, Roche, Bayer, Esteve, Lilly and Eisai. Carys Morgan: no conflicts of interest to declare. Lucy R Wall: no conflicts of interest to declare. Ian Chau: reports advisory role for Eli-Lilly, Bristol Meyers Squibb, MSD, Bayer, Roche, Merck-Serono, Five Prime Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Oncologie International, Pierre Fabre; research funding from Eli-Lilly, Janssen-Cilag, Sanofi Oncology, Merck-Serono; honorarium from Eli-Lilly. Nick Reed: no conflicts of interest to declare. Debashis Sarker: reports personal fees from MSD, personal fees and non-financial support from EISAI, personal fees and non-financial support from Ipsen, personal fees from Bayer, non-financial support from Mina Therapeutics, personal fees from Pfizer, personal fees from Novartis. Jane Margetts: no conflicts of interest to declare. Daniel Krell: no conflicts of interest to declare. Judith Cave: reports educational support from Amgen. Sharmila Sothi: no conflicts of interest to declare. Alan Anthoney: no conflicts of interest to declare. Chris Bell: no conflicts of interest to declare. Alkesh Patel: no conflicts of interest to declare. Jamie B Oughton: reports grants and/or non-financial support from Servier, Roche, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Bayer. David Cairns: reports grants and non-financial support from Servier, during the conduct of the study. Wasat Mansoor: no conflicts of interest to declare. Angela Lamarca: has received travel and educational support from Ipsen, Pfizer, Bayer, AAA, SirtEx, Novartis, Mylan and Delcath; speaker honoraria from Merck, Pfizer, Ipsen, Incyte, AAA, QED and Servier; advisory honoraria from EISAI, Nutricia Ipsen, QED, Roche and Servier; she is a member of the Knowledge Network and NET Connect Initiatives funded by Ipsen. Richard A Hubner: has served on the advisory boards for Roche, BMS, Eisai, Celgene, Beigene, Ipsen and BTG. He has received speaker fees from Eisai, Ipsen, Mylan, PrimeOncology and has received travel and educational support from Bayer, BMS and Roche. Juan W Valle: has had consulting or advisory roles for Agios, AstraZeneca, Delcath Systems, Keocyt, Genoscience Pharma, Incyte, Ipsen, Merck, Mundipharma EDO, Novartis, PCI Biotech, Pfizer, Pieris Pharmaceuticals, QED and Wren Laboratories. He is on speakers’ bureaus for Imaging Equipment Limited, Ipsen, Novartis and Nucana; and has received travel grants from Celgene and Nucana., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

The GA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) (GALACTIC) was a seamless phase II/III trial designed to test whether consolidation with obinutuzumab is safe and eradicates minimal residual disease (MRD) and, subsequently, whether this leads to prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with CLL who have recently responded to chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with a response 3-24 months after chemotherapy were assessed for MRD. MRD-positive patients were randomised to receive consolidation therapy with obinutuzumab or no consolidation. The trial closed after the phase II part due to slow recruitment. In all, 48 patients enrolled of whom 19 were MRD negative and were monitored. Of the 29 MRD-positive patients, 14 were randomised to receive consolidation and 15 to no consolidation. At 6 months after randomisation, 10 and 13 consolidated patients achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry (sensitivity 10 -4 ) in bone marrow and peripheral blood respectively. PFS was significantly better in consolidated patients compared to non-consolidated patients (p = 0.001). No difference was observed in PFS, overall survival or duration of MRD negativity when comparing the 10 MRD-negative patients after consolidation with the 19 MRD-negative patients in the monitoring group. Common adverse events in the consolidation arm were thrombocytopenia, infection, and cough. Only 1% of events were infusion-related reactions. This observation provides further evidence that consolidation to achieve MRD negativity improves outcomes in CLL and that obinutuzumab is well tolerated in patients with low levels of disease., (© 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Haematology published by British Society for Haematology and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Purpose: CONCORDE is the first phase I drug-radiotherapy (RT) combination platform in non-small-cell lung cancer, designed to assess multiple different DNA damage response inhibitors in combination with radical thoracic RT. Time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) methodology will inform dose escalation individually for each different DNA damage response inhibitor-RT combination and a randomized calibration arm will aid attribution of toxicities. We report in detail the novel statistical design and implementation of the TiTE-CRM in the CONCORDE trial., Methods: Statistical parameters were calibrated following recommendations by Lee and Cheung. Simulations were performed to assess the operating characteristics of the chosen models and were written using modified code from the R package dfcrm., Results: The results of the simulation work showed that the proposed statistical model setup can answer the research questions under a wide range of potential scenarios. The proposed models work well under varying levels of recruitment and with multiple adaptations to the original methodology., Conclusion: The results demonstrate how TiTE-CRM methodology may be used in practice in a complex dose-finding platform study. We propose that this novel phase I design has potential to overcome some of the logistical barriers that for many years have prevented timely development of novel drug-RT combinations.

Background: Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants' safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters' experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed., Methods: Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes., Results: A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process., Conclusions: Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The FLAIR trial in chronic lymphocytic leukaemia has a randomised, controlled, open-label, confirmatory, platform design. FLAIR was successfully amended to include an emerging promising experimental therapy to expedite its assessment, greatly reducing the time to reach the primary outcome compared to running a separate trial and without compromising the validity of the research or the ability to recruit to the trial and report the outcomes. The methodological and practical issues are presented, describing how they were addressed to ensure the amendment was a success., Methods: FLAIR was designed as a two-arm trial requiring 754 patients. In stage 2, two new arms were added: a new experimental arm and a second control arm to protect the trial in case of a change in practice. In stage 3, the original experimental arm was closed as its planned recruitment target was reached. In total, 1516 participants will be randomised to the trial., Results: The changes to the protocol and randomisation to add and stop arms were made seamlessly without pausing recruitment. The statistical considerations to ensure the results for the original and new hypotheses are unbiased were approved following peer review by oversight committees, Cancer Research UK, ethical and regulatory committees and pharmaceutical partners. These included the use of concurrent comparators in case of any stage effect, appropriate control of the type I error rate and consideration of analysis methods across trial stages. The operational aspects of successfully implementing the amendments are described, including gaining approvals and additional funding, data management requirements and implementation at centres., Conclusions: FLAIR is an exemplar of how an emerging experimental therapy can be assessed within an existing trial structure without compromising the conduct, reporting or validity of the trial. This strategy offered considerable resource savings and allowed the new experimental therapy to be assessed within a confirmatory trial in the UK years earlier than would have otherwise been possible. Despite the clear efficiencies, treatment arms are rarely added to ongoing trials in practice. This paper demonstrates how this strategy is acceptable, feasible and beneficial to patients and the wider research community., Trial Registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN01844152 . Registered on August 08, 2014.

Aims: Brain (central nervous system; CNS) metastases occur in 30-50% of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). A substantive evidence base for treatment is lacking, but activity with lapatinib plus capecitabine (lap-cap) has been reported. We compared lap-cap with trastuzumab plus capecitabine (tras-cap) in patients with HER2-positive MBC with CNS metastases previously treated with trastuzumab., Materials and Methods: This open-label randomised phase II screening trial aimed to randomise 130 participants over 2 years to receive lap-cap or tras-cap. Eligible patients had HER2-positive MBC with newly diagnosed or recently progressed CNS metastases; previous, or current, treatment included: trastuzumab, a taxane or anthracycline and recent completion of local cranial therapy. The primary end point was time to progression of CNS metastases within the 24-week trial period. Secondary objectives included CNS response rate, progression-free survival, steroid use for CNS symptoms and feasibility of recruitment to a large phase III trial., Results: Between September 2011 and October 2013, 30 participants were randomised, 16 to lap-cap and 14 to tras-cap. Recruitment to a large phase III trial was determined not to be feasible. At 24 weeks, CNS disease progression was 41.8% (95% confidence interval 16.1-67.5%) in lap-cap and 41.2% (95% confidence interval 12.8-69.6%) in tras-cap arms; progression-free survival was 44.4% (95% confidence interval 18.1-70.8%) in lap-cap and 50.0% (95% confidence interval 20.9-79.1%) in tras-cap arms., Conclusion: Poor recruitment confirmed that a larger phase III trial would not be feasible and prohibited a preliminary evaluation of the superiority of lap-cap over tras-cap. Descriptive statistics are presented to inform the limited evidence base and future study design., (Copyright © 2020 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for 'gold standard' treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding., Competing Interests: 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., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.)

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.

Introduction: High-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it., Methods and Analysis: BRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN12509361; Pre results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukaemia. Combination immunochemotherapy such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab is the standard first line therapy in fit patients, but there is limited evidence regarding the optimal treatment of patients after relapse. Ofatumumab as monotherapy has been proven to be effective in the treatment of relapsed, refractory CLL, and as it is not myelotoxic, it is an ideal drug to combine with chemotherapy. However, the optimal dose of ofatumumab in this setting is not known. The Chemotherapy plus Ofatumumab at Standard or Mega dose in relapsed CLL (COSMIC) trial will assess the efficacy and safety of standard and high (mega) doses of ofatumumab combined with bendamustine or a combination of fludarabine and cyclophosphamide to determine which, if either, schedule should progress to a phase III trial., Methods/design: COSMIC is a phase II, multi-centre, randomised, open, parallel group trial for patients with relapsed CLL who are not refractory to fludarabine-based chemotherapy. Participants will be randomised to receive either standard dose or mega dose ofatumumab. Both doses will be given in combination with either bendamustine or fludarabine and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy backbone. The primary objective is to assess the proportion of participants achieving a complete remission following therapy with the two treatment arms (mega versus standard), as assessed at 3 months post treatment. The treatment groups will be assessed independently to determine whether the level of response is acceptable in relation to pre-specified criteria. If both treatment groups show an acceptable level of response, selection criteria will be used to determine which to take forward to a confirmatory phase III trial. A key secondary objective is to assess the dynamics of minimal residual disease (MRD) levels in relapsed disease. Eighty-two participants are planned to be recruited from 18 research centres in the UK., Discussion: Currently there is limited evidence regarding the optimal treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory CLL, and so suitable therapies are urgently needed. The COSMIC trial will identify whether ofatumumab given in combination with chemotherapy is safe and effective in this population, and will identify the optimal doses for further investigation., Trial Registration: ISRCTN51382468 . Registered on 21 September 2011.