Search

Presents a discussion of the types of unit used in the various Technical Education Council Programs, and the consultation procedures with industry which are required for unit development. (Author/SA)

Aims: The MAPK pathway is constitutively activated in uveal melanoma (UM). Selumetinib (AZD6244, ARRY-142886), a MEK inhibitor, has shown limited activity as monotherapy in metastatic UM. Pre-clinical studies support synergistic cytotoxic activity for MEK inhibitors combined with taxanes, and here we sought to assess the clinical efficacy of combining selumetinib and paclitaxel., Patients and Methods: Seventy-seven patients with metastatic UM who had not received prior chemotherapy were randomised to selumetinib alone, or combined with paclitaxel with or without interruption in selumetinib two days before paclitaxel. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). After amendment, the combination arms were combined for analysis and the sample size adjusted to detect a hazard ratio (HR): 0.55, 80% power at 1-sided 5% significance level., Results: The median PFS in the combination arms was 4.8 months (95% CI: 3.8 - 5.6) compared with 3.4 months (2.0 - 3.9) in the selumetinib arm (HR 0.62 [90% CI 0.41 - 0.92], 1-sided p-value = 0.022). ORR was 14% and 4% in the combination and monotherapy arms respectively. Median OS was 9 months for the combination and was not significantly different from selumetinib alone (10 months) with HR of 0.98 [90% CI 0.58 - 1.66], 1-sided p-value = 0.469. Toxicity was in keeping with the known profiles of the agents involved., Conclusions: SelPac met its primary endpoint, demonstrating an improvement in PFS for combination selumetinib and paclitaxel. No improvement in OS was observed, and the modest improvement in PFS is not practice changing., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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. JJS reports institutional funding for trial delivery from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Merck, Replimune, Transgene; research grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore; paint consultancy/advisory Board membership from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Delcath Systems, Immunocore, Merck; and sponsorship for congress attendance: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck. TRJE has received honoraria for consultancies (payable to the employing institution) from Ascelia, Astra Zeneca, Bayer, Bicycle Therapeutics, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Karus Therapeutics, Medivir, MSD, Otsuka, Roche, and Seagen; honoraria for speaker’s fees (payable to employing institution) from Astra Zeneca, Ascelia, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celgene, Eisai, Nucana, MSD, Roche, Medivir, and United Medical; has received support of costs of commercial clinical trials (payable to employing institution) from Astra Zeneca, Basilea, Bayer, Celgene, Exscientia; Exelexis; MiNa Therapeutics, Roche, Pfizer, Sierra, Lilly, Eisai, GSK, Novartis, Bicycle Therapeutics, Johnson and Johnson, CytomX, Vertex, Plexxikon, Boehringer, Athinex, Adaptimmune, Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Medivir, Versatem, Nucana, Immunocore, Berg, Beigene, Iovance, Modulate, BiolinerX, Merck Serono, Nurix Therapeutics, T3P, Janssen Clovis, Sanofi-Aventis, Halozyme, Starpharma, UCB, Sapience, Seagen, Avacta, and Codiak; has received funding from Cancer Research UK, Chief Scientist’s Office Scotland, and the MRC; (payable to employing institution); has received support to attend national & international congresses from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, MSD, Celgene, Pierre-Fabre (personal). SO reports honoraria from BMS. Merck, MSD, AstraZeneca and Janssen; and consulting fees from MSD, Immuncore, Janssen and Genmab. JL reports research funding from Achilles, BMS, MSD, Nektar, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Immunocore, Aveo, Pharmacyclics; Consulting fees from iOnctura, Apple Tree, Merck, BMS, Eisai, Debipharm, Incyte; and Honoraria from Eisai, Novartis, Incyte, Merck, touchIME, touchEXPERTS, Pfizer, Royal College of Physicians, Cambridge Healthcare Research, Royal College of General Practitioners, VJOncology, Agence Unik, BMSIK reports consulting fees from Merck Serono; and research funding from Genetech, Achilles Therapeutics and Replimune. PL reports honoraria from Norvartis, PierreFabre, Merck , BMS, NeraCare GmbH, Amgen, Roche and oncology Education Canada; and research funding from BMS, PierreFabre. RP report honoraria for attending advisory boards from Pierre Faber, Bayer, Novartis, BMS, Ellipses, Immunocore, Genmab, Astex Therapeutics, MSD, Nerviano, AmLo, Incyte, Cybrexa Benevolent AI and Sanofi Aventis; honoraria for working as an IDMC member for Alligator Biosciences, GSK, Onxeo, SOTIO Biotech AG, and AstraZeneca; honoraria for delivery of educational talks or chairing educational meetings by AstraZeneca, Novartis, Bayer, MSD and BMS; and funds to support attendance at conferences from MSD and BMS. PP reports research funding from AstraZeneca. AO-B reports honoraria from BMS, MSD, Eisai, Roche, Novartis, AZ; and research Funding from BMS UCB pharma, Roche, Novartis and Eli Lily. HS report paid consultancy for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Immunocore, Idera, Iovance, Genmab, Sanofi Genzyme/Regeneron, Macrogenics, Roche, Agenus, Ideaya, iOnctura, CDR-Life, NovalGen, Therakos/Mallinkrodt Pharmaceuticals, ScanCelll; and speakers bureau for Novartis, BMS, MSD, Sanofi Genzyme/Regeneron, AstraZeneca, Eisai. SL reports consulting for Bayer, Immunocore; and expenses from Bayer. PN discloses Data and Safety Monitoring for 4SC, Achilles; and Consultant/Advisory Board for 4SC, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Immunocore, Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer; Research Grant/Contract: Immunocore. The other authors do not report any potential conflicting interests., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma have relatively low resection rates and poor survival despite the use of adjuvant chemotherapy. The aim of our study was to establish the feasibility and efficacy of three different types of short-course neoadjuvant therapy compared with immediate surgery., Methods: ESPAC5 (formerly known as ESPAC-5f) was a multicentre, open label, randomised controlled trial done in 16 pancreatic centres in two countries (UK and Germany). Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, with a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, biopsy proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma in the pancreatic head, and were staged as having a borderline resectable tumour by contrast-enhanced CT criteria following central review. Participants were randomly assigned by means of minimisation to one of four groups: immediate surgery; neoadjuvant gemcitabine and capecitabine (gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 on days 1, 8, and 15, and oral capecitabine 830 mg/m 2 twice a day on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle for two cycles); neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m 2 , irinotecan 180 mg/m 2 , folinic acid given according to local practice, and fluorouracil 400 mg/m 2 bolus injection on days 1 and 15 followed by 2400 mg/m 2 46 h intravenous infusion given on days 1 and 15, repeated every 2 weeks for four cycles); or neoadjuvant capecitabine-based chemoradiation (total dose 50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions over 5·5 weeks [1·8 Gy per fraction, Monday to Friday] with capecitabine 830 mg/m 2 twice daily [Monday to Friday] throughout radiotherapy). Patients underwent restaging contrast-enhanced CT at 4-6 weeks after neoadjuvant therapy and underwent surgical exploration if the tumour was still at least borderline resectable. All patients who had their tumour resected received adjuvant therapy at the oncologist's discretion. Primary endpoints were recruitment rate and resection rate. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 89500674, and is complete., Findings: Between Sept 3, 2014, and Dec 20, 2018, from 478 patients screened, 90 were randomly assigned to a group (33 to immediate surgery, 20 to gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 20 to FOLFIRINOX, and 17 to capecitabine-based chemoradiation); four patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis (one in the capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy withdrew consent before starting therapy and three [two in the immediate surgery group and one in the gemcitabine plus capecitabine group] were found to be ineligible after randomisation). 44 (80%) of 55 patients completed neoadjuvant therapy. The recruitment rate was 25·92 patients per year from 16 sites; 21 (68%) of 31 patients in the immediate surgery and 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the combined neoadjuvant therapy groups underwent resection (p=0·33). R0 resection was achieved in three (14%) of 21 patients in the immediate surgery group and seven (23%) of 30 in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined (p=0·49). Surgical complications were observed in 29 (43%) of 68 patients who underwent surgery; no patients died within 30 days. 46 (84%) of 55 patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy were available for restaging. Six (13%) of 46 had a partial response. Median follow-up time was 12·2 months (95% CI 12·0-12·4). 1-year overall survival was 39% (95% CI 24-61) for immediate surgery, 78% (60-100) for gemcitabine plus capecitabine, 84% (70-100) for FOLFIRINOX, and 60% (37-97) for capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy (p=0·0028). 1-year disease-free survival from surgery was 33% (95% CI 19-58) for immediate surgery and 59% (46-74) for the combined neoadjuvant therapies (hazard ratio 0·53 [95% CI 0·28-0·98], p=0·016). Three patients reported local disease recurrence (two in the immediate surgery group and one in the FOLFIRINOX group). 78 (91%) patients were included in the safety set and assessed for toxicity events. 19 (24%) of 78 patients reported a grade 3 or worse adverse event (two [7%] of 28 patients in the immediate surgery group and 17 [34%] of 50 patients in the neoadjuvant therapy groups combined), the most common of which were neutropenia, infection, and hyperglycaemia., Interpretation: Recruitment was challenging. There was no significant difference in resection rates between patients who underwent immediate surgery and those who underwent neoadjuvant therapy. Short-course (8 week) neoadjuvant therapy had a significant survival benefit compared with immediate surgery. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy with either gemcitabine plus capecitabine or FOLFIRINOX had the best survival compared with immediate surgery. These findings support the use of short-course neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with borderline resectable pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma., Funding: Cancer Research UK., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests PG has grant funding from CRUK. DC has research grants received from MedImmune, Clovis, Eli Lilly, 4SC, Bayer, Celgene, Leap, and Roche all paid to the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, and participated on the scientific advisory board for OVIBIO (unpaid). CMH has research grants from CRUK, Royal College of Surgeons of England and Pancreatic cancer UK. JPN has research grants from CRUK, Stiftung Deutsche Krebshilfe, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung, Heidelberger Stiftung Chirurgie, and Dietmar Hopp Stiftung. DP has grant funding from BMS, Nucana, Astra Zeneca, Sirtex, honoraria from Boston Scientific and Sirtex, and support for travel from Nucana. SM has grant funding from CRUK. JW has consulting fees from Lilly, Novartis and Eisai and honoraria from Lilly, Eisai, Roche, Bayer, Novartis, Ipsen, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Genzyme. JWV has received personal fees from Agios, Astra Zeneca, Baxter, Genoscience Pharma, Hutchison Medipharma, Imaging Equipment Ltd–AAA, Incyte, Ipsen, Mundipharma EDO, Mylan, Nucana, QED, Servierm Sirtex, and Zymeworks, and grant funding and non-financial support from Nucana. CS has participated on advisory boards for Bayer, BMS, Eisai, MSD, Roche and Incyte., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) Network aims to support high-quality, efficient and sustainable clinical trials research in the UK. To better understand the challenges in efficient trial conduct, and to help prioritise tackling these challenges, we surveyed CTU staff. The aim was to identify important inefficiencies during two key stages of the trial conduct life cycle: (i) from grant award to first participant, (ii) from first participant to reporting of final results., Methods: Respondents were asked to list their top three inefficiencies from grant award to recruitment of the first participant, and from recruitment of the first participant to publication of results. Free text space allowed respondents to explain why they thought these were important. The survey was constructed using SurveyMonkey and circulated to the 45 registered CTUs in May 2013. Respondents were asked to name their unit and job title, but were otherwise anonymous. Free-text responses were coded into broad categories., Results: There were 43 respondents from 25 CTUs. The top inefficiency between grant award and recruitment of first participant was reported as obtaining research and development (R&D) approvals by 23 respondents (53%), contracts by 22 (51%), and other approvals by 13 (30%). The top inefficiency from recruitment of first participant to publication of results was failure to meet recruitment targets, reported by 19 (44%) respondents. A common comment was that this reflected overoptimistic or inaccurate estimates of recruitment at site. Data management, including case report form design and delays in resolving data queries with sites, was reported as an important inefficiency by 11 (26%) respondents, and preparation and submission for publication by 9 (21%)., Conclusions: Recommendations for improving the efficiency of trial conduct within the CTUs network include: further reducing unnecessary bureaucracy in approvals and contracting; improving training for site staff; realistic recruitment targets and appropriate feasibility; developing training across the network; improving the working relationships between chief investigators and units; encouraging funders to release sufficient funding to allow prompt recruitment of trial staff; and encouraging more research into how to improve the efficiency and quality of trial conduct.

Background: Erlotinib is an EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has shown a significant but only marginally improved median overall survival when combined with gemcitabine in patients with locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. Vandetanib is a novel tyrosine kinase inhibitor of VEGFR2, RET, and EGFR, all of which are in involved in the pathogenesis of pancreatic cancer. We investigated the clinical efficacy of vandetanib when used in combination with gemcitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer., Methods: The Vandetanib in Pancreatic Cancer (ViP) trial was a phase 2 double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial in previously untreated adult patients (aged ≥18 years) diagnosed with locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas confirmed by cytology or histology. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 0-2 and a documented life expectancy of at least 3 months. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive vandetanib plus gemcitabine (vandetanib group) or placebo plus gemcitabine (placebo group) according to pre-generated sequences produced on the principle of randomly permuted blocks with variable block sizes of two and four. Patients were stratified at randomisation by disease stage and ECOG performance status. All patients received gemcitabine 1000 mg/m 2 as a 30-min intravenous infusion, weekly, for 7 weeks followed by a 1-week break, followed by a cycle of 3 weeks of treatment with a 1-week break, until disease progression, and either oral vandetanib 300 mg per day once daily or matching placebo. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival (defined as the difference in time between randomisation and death from any cause or the censor date) in the intention-to-treat population. This trial has been completed and the final results are reported. The study is registered at EudraCT, number 2007-004299-38, and ISRCTN, number ISRCTN96397434., Findings: Patients were screened and enrolled between Oct 24, 2011, and Oct 7, 2013. Of 381 patients screened, 142 eligible patients were randomly assigned to treatment (72 to the vandetanib group and 70 to the placebo group). At database lock on July 15, 2015, at a median follow-up of 24·9 months (IQR 24·3 to not attainable), 131 patients had died: 70 (97%) of 72 in the vandetanib group and 61 (87%) of 70 in the placebo group. The median overall survival was 8·83 months (95% CI 7·11-11·58) in the vandetanib group and 8·95 months (6·55-11·74) in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·21, 80·8% CI 0·95-1·53; log rank χ 2 1df 1·1, p=0·303). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (35 [49%] of 72 patients in the vandetanib group vs 22 [31%] of 70 in the placebo group), thrombocytopenia (20 [28%] vs 16 [23%]), hypertension (nine [13%] vs 11 [16%]), leucopenia (12 [17%] vs 13 [19%]), and fatigue (17 [24%] vs 15 [21%]). No treatment-related deaths occurred during the study., Interpretation: The addition of vandetanib to gemcitabine monotherapy did not improve overall survival in advanced pancreatic cancer. Tyrosine kinase inhibitors might still have potential in the treatment of pancreatic cancer but further development requires the identification of biomarkers to specifically identify responsive cancer subtypes., Funding: Cancer Research UK and AstraZeneca., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer., Methods: TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138., Findings: The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group)., Interpretation: Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy., Funding: Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study aims to determine the prevalence of methotrexate-induced nausea and vomiting in both adolescent and adult patients with inflammatory arthritis. A survey of methotrexate side effects was conducted on patients with inflammatory arthritis. We provided a brief questionnaire to unselected patients with inflammatory arthritis being treated with methotrexate attending adolescent and adult rheumatology clinics. The questions related to the presence, absence, and severity of nausea and vomiting, the temporal relationship with methotrexate and whether anti-emetics had been prescribed. A total of 106 patients from the age of 13 years and above--57 adults (over 20 years) and 49 adolescents (13-19 years) were included in this study. The median age for those experiencing nausea was 19 years (interquartile range (IQR) 7) and for those with no nausea 55 years (IQR 46) (p < 0.001). Thirty-six out of 49 adolescent patients reported nausea (73%) compared to only 20/57 adults (35%) (p < 0.001). Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that the nausea group had a significantly higher proportion of adolescents (p = 0.0002), patients taking subcutaneous (SC) methotrexate MTX (p = 0.002), and patients with duration of MTX of more than 1 year (p = 0.049). Adolescents were estimated to have over 6 times higher odds of nausea compared to adults (OR 6.31, 95% CI 2.38 to 16.75, p = 0.0002) after adjusting for SC MTX and duration of MTX. Only 22% of adolescents and 10% of adults were prescribed anti-emetics. There is a higher prevalence of MTX-induced nausea and vomiting in adolescents and younger adult patients with inflammatory arthritis compared to older adults. The role of anti-emetics in the treatment of these symptoms is unclear.

How many readers of this journal have tried to imagine what surgery was like before the sophisticated technical developments described in its pages? Not just before such important advances as blood transfusion, anaesthesia and asepsis, but long before the evolution of teaching hospitals, with their steeply-raked operating theatres, crowded with students and other curious onlookers. Today's medical experts tend to dismiss early practitioners of surgery as "primitive" and "unscientific" because their ideas about human physiology (which appeared perfectly rational at the time) now seem tinged with superstition. Surgery in medieval England was certainly very different from anything we are likely to encounter in the sanitized environment of the modern hospital, yet it was well organised, carefully regulated and made great demands upon the skill and dedication of the men and women who plied a difficult trade, in which the rewards could be considerable but the risks even greater.