Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS.

METHODS-AND-RESULTS

Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status.

DISCUSSION

DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Prognostic and predictive impact of sex in locally advanced microsatellite instability high gastric or gastroesophageal junction cancer: An individual patient data pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy is the standard of care for locally advanced GC/GEJC, though with unsatisfactory results. dMMR/MSI-high tumors have better prognosis and scant benefit from chemotherapy as compared to pMMR/MSS ones. The differential outcome of therapies in terms of safety and efficacy according to sex is still debated in GC/GEJC patients.

METHODS

We previously performed an individual patient data pooled analysis of MAGIC, CLASSIC, ITACA-S, and ARTIST trials including GC/GEJC patients treated with surgery alone or surgery plus peri-operative/adjuvant chemotherapy to assess the value of MSI status. We performed a secondary analysis investigating the prognostic and predictive role of sex (female versus male) in the pooled analysis dataset in the overall population and patients stratified for MSI status (MSI-high versus MSS/MSI-low). Disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were calculated.

RESULTS

Patients with MSI-high tumors had improved survival as compared to MSS/MSI-low ones irrespective of sex, whereas in those with MSS/MSI-low tumors, females had numerically longer OS and DFS (5-year OS was 63.2% versus 57.6%, HR 0.842; p = 0.058, and 5-year DFS was 55.8% versus 50.8%, HR 0.850; p = 0.0504 in female versus male patients). The numerical difference for the detrimental effect of chemotherapy in MSI-high GC was higher in females than males, while the significant benefit of chemotherapy over surgery alone was confirmed in MSS/MSI-low GC irrespective of sex.

CONCLUSIONS

This pooled analysis including four randomized trials highlights a relevant impact of sex in the prognosis and treatment efficacy of MSI-high and MSS/MSI-low non-metastatic GC/GEJC.

Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA) improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated oesophagogastric cancer patients from the MAGIC and the ST03 trial

BACKGROUND

Tumour-associated fat cells without desmoplastic stroma reaction at the invasion front (Stroma AReactive Invasion Front Areas (SARIFA)) is a prognostic biomarker in gastric and colon cancer. The clinical utility of the SARIFA status in oesophagogastric cancer patients treated with perioperative chemotherapy is currently unknown.

METHODS

The SARIFA status was determined in tissue sections from patients recruited into the MAGIC (n = 292) or ST03 (n = 693) trials treated with surgery alone (S, MAGIC) or perioperative chemotherapy (MAGIC, ST03). The relationship between SARIFA status, clinicopathological factors, overall survival (OS) and treatment was analysed.

RESULTS

The SARIFA status was positive in 42% MAGIC trial S patients, 28% MAGIC and 48% ST03 patients after pre-operative chemotherapy. SARIFA status was related to OS in MAGIC trial S patients and was an independent prognostic biomarker in ST03 trial patients (HR 1.974, 95% CI 1.555-2.507, p < 0.001). ST03 patients with lymph node metastasis (ypN + ) and SARIFA-positive tumours had poorer OS than patients with ypN+ and SARIFA-negative tumours (plogrank < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SARIFA status has clinical utility as prognostic biomarker in oesophagogastric cancer patients irrespective of treatment modality. Whilst underlying biological mechanisms warrant further investigation, the SARIFA status might be used to identify new drug targets, potentially enabling repurposing of existing drugs targeting lipid metabolism.

A Repurposing Programme Evaluating Transdermal Oestradiol Patches for the Treatment of Prostate Cancer Within the PATCH and STAMPEDE Trials: Current Results and Adapting Trial Design

AIMS

Androgen deprivation therapy (ADT), usually achieved with luteinising hormone releasing hormone analogues (LHRHa), is central to prostate cancer management. LHRHa reduce both testosterone and oestrogen and are associated with significant long-term toxicity. Previous use of oral oestrogens as ADT was curtailed because of cardiovascular toxicity. Transdermal oestrogen (tE2) patches are a potential alternative ADT, supressing testosterone without the associated oestrogen-depletion toxicities (osteoporosis, hot flushes, metabolic abnormalities) and avoiding cardiovascular toxicity, and we here describe their evaluation in men with prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The PATCH (NCT00303784) adaptive trials programme (incorporating recruitment through the STAMPEDE [NCT00268476] platform) is evaluating the safety and efficacy of tE2 patches as ADT for men with prostate cancer. An initial randomised (LHRHa versus tE2) phase II study (n = 251) with cardiovascular toxicity as the primary outcome measure has expanded into a phase III evaluation. Those with locally advanced (M0) or metastatic (M1) prostate cancer are eligible. To reflect changes in both management and prognosis, the PATCH programme is now evaluating these cohorts separately.

RESULTS

Recruitment is complete, with 1362 and 1128 in the M0 and M1 cohorts, respectively. Rates of androgen suppression with tE2 were equivalent to LHRHa, with improved metabolic parameters, quality of life and bone health indices (mean absolute change in lumbar spine bone mineral density of -3.0% for LHRHa and +7.9% for tE2 with an estimated difference between arms of 9.3% (95% confidence interval 5.3-13.4). Importantly, rates of cardiovascular events were not significantly different between the two arms and the time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatment groups (hazard ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.53; P = 0.54). Oncological outcomes are awaited.

FUTURE

Efficacy results for the M0 cohort (primary outcome measure metastases-free survival) are expected in the final quarter of 2023. For M1 patients (primary outcome measure - overall survival), analysis using restricted mean survival time is being explored. Allied translational work on longitudinal samples is underway.

A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials

BACKGROUND

The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures.

METHODS

We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption.

RESULTS

Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered.

CONCLUSION

When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards.

Thromboxane biosynthesis in cancer patients and its inhibition by aspirin: a sub-study of the Add-Aspirin trial

BACKGROUND

Pre-clinical models demonstrate that platelet activation is involved in the spread of malignancy. Ongoing clinical trials are assessing whether aspirin, which inhibits platelet activation, can prevent or delay metastases.

METHODS

Urinary 11-dehydro-thromboxane B2 (U-TXM), a biomarker of in vivo platelet activation, was measured after radical cancer therapy and correlated with patient demographics, tumour type, recent treatment, and aspirin use (100 mg, 300 mg or placebo daily) using multivariable linear regression models with log-transformed values.

RESULTS

In total, 716 patients (breast 260, colorectal 192, gastro-oesophageal 53, prostate 211) median age 61 years, 50% male were studied. Baseline median U-TXM were breast 782; colorectal 1060; gastro-oesophageal 1675 and prostate 826 pg/mg creatinine; higher than healthy individuals (~500 pg/mg creatinine). Higher levels were associated with raised body mass index, inflammatory markers, and in the colorectal and gastro-oesophageal participants compared to breast participants (P < 0.001) independent of other baseline characteristics. Aspirin 100 mg daily decreased U-TXM similarly across all tumour types (median reductions: 77-82%). Aspirin 300 mg daily provided no additional suppression of U-TXM compared with 100 mg.

CONCLUSIONS

Persistently increased thromboxane biosynthesis was detected after radical cancer therapy, particularly in colorectal and gastro-oesophageal patients. Thromboxane biosynthesis should be explored further as a biomarker of active malignancy and may identify patients likely to benefit from aspirin.

Pathological regression of primary tumour and metastatic lymph nodes following chemotherapy in resectable OG cancer: pooled analysis of two trials

BACKGROUND

No definitive largescale data exist evaluating the role of pathologically defined regression changes within the primary tumour and lymph nodes (LN) of resected oesophagogastric (OG) adenocarcinoma following neoadjuvant chemotherapy and the impact on survival.

METHODS

Data and samples from two large prospective randomised trials (UK MRC OE05 and ST03) were pooled. Stained slides were available for central pathology review from 1619 patients. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and regression of tumour within LNs (LNR: scored as present/absent) were assessed and correlated with overall survival (OS) using a Cox regression model. An exploratory analysis to define subgroups with distinct prognoses was conducted using a classification and regression tree (CART) analysis.

RESULTS

Neither trial demonstrated a relationship between TRG score and the presence or absence of LNR. In univariable analysis, lower TRG, lower ypN stage, lower ypT stage, presence of LNR, presence of well/moderate tumour differentiation, and absence of tumour at resection margin were all associated with better OS. However, the multivariable analysis demonstrated that only ypN, ypT, grade of differentiation and resection margin (R0) were independent indicators of prognosis. Exploratory CART analysis identified six subgroups with 3-year OS ranging from 83% to 22%; with ypN stage being the most important single prognostic variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Pathological LN stage within the resection specimen was the single most important determiner of survival. Our results suggest that the assessment of regression changes within the primary tumour or LNs may not be necessary to define the prognosis further.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival.

METHODS

We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0-2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544).

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86-107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61-74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8-86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6-52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53-0·73]; p<0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9-81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3-59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55-0·77]; p<0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83-1·32]; p_interaction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I² p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3-5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (<1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial).

INTERPRETATION

Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Healthcare systems data in the context of clinical trials - A comparison of cardiovascular data from a clinical trial dataset with routinely collected data

BACKGROUND

Routinely-collected healthcare systems data (HSD) are proposed to improve the efficiency of clinical trials. A comparison was undertaken between cardiovascular (CVS) data from a clinical trial database with two HSD resources.

METHODS

Protocol-defined and clinically reviewed CVS events (heart failure (HF), acute coronary syndrome (ACS), thromboembolic stroke, venous and arterial thromboembolism) were identified within the trial data. Data (using pre-specified codes) was obtained from NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) HF and myocardial ischaemia audits for trial participants recruited in England between 2010 and 2018 who had provided consent. The primary comparison was trial data versus HES inpatient (APC) main diagnosis (Box-1). Correlations are presented with descriptive statistics and Venn diagrams. Reasons for non-correlation were explored.

RESULTS

From 1200 eligible participants, 71 protocol-defined clinically reviewed CVS events were recorded in the trial database. 45 resulted in a hospital admission and therefore could have been recorded by either HES APC/ NICOR. Of these, 27/45 (60%) were recorded by HES inpatient (Box-1) with an additional 30 potential events also identified. HF and ACS were potentially recorded in all 3 datasets; trial data recorded 18, HES APC 29 and NICOR 24 events respectively. 12/18 (67%) of the HF/ACS events in the trial dataset were recorded by NICOR.

CONCLUSION

Concordance between datasets was lower than anticipated and the HSD used could not straightforwardly replace current trial practices, nor directly identify protocol-defined CVS events. Further work is required to improve the quality of HSD and consider event definitions when designing clinical trials incorporating HSD.

Prognostic Significance of Negative Lymph Node Long Axis in Esophageal Cancer: Results From the Randomized Controlled UK MRC OE02 Trial

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the relationship between negative lymph node (LNneg) size as a possible surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and overall survival (OS) in esophageal cancer (EC) patients.

BACKGROUND

Lymph node (LN) status is a well-established prognostic factor in EC patients. An increased number of LNnegs is related to better survival in EC. Follicular hyperplasia in LNneg is associated with better survival in cancer-bearing mice and might explain increased LN size.

METHODS

The long axis of 304 LNnegs was measured in hematoxylin-eosin stained sections from resection specimens of 367 OE02 trial patients (188 treated with surgery alone (S), 179 with neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus surgery (C+S)) as a surrogate of LN size. The relationship between LNneg size, LNneg microarchitecture, clinicopathological variables, and OS was analyzed.

RESULTS

Large LNneg size was related to lower pN category ( P = 0.01) and lower frequency of lymphatic invasion ( P = 0.02) in S patients only. Irrespective of treatment, (y)pN0 patients with large LNneg had the best OS. (y)pN1 patients had the poorest OS irrespective of LNneg size ( P < 0.001). Large LNneg contained less lymphocytes ( P = 0.02) and had a higher germinal centers/lymphocyte ratio ( P = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to investigate LNneg size in EC patients randomized to neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery or surgery alone. Our pilot study suggests that LNneg size is a surrogate marker of the host antitumor immune response and a potentially clinically useful new prognostic biomarker for (y)pN0 EC patients. Future studies need to confirm our results and explore underlying biological mechanisms.

REFINE (REduced Frequency ImmuNE checkpoint inhibition in cancers): A multi-arm phase II basket trial testing reduced intensity immunotherapy across different cancers

BACKGROUND

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2-6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2-3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs.

METHODS/DESIGN

REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021-002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001-0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0.

Automated detection and delineation of lymph nodes in haematoxylin & eosin stained digitised slides

Treatment of patients with oesophageal and gastric cancer (OeGC) is guided by disease stage, patient performance status and preferences. Lymph node (LN) status is one of the strongest prognostic factors for OeGC patients. However, survival varies between patients with the same disease stage and LN status. We recently showed that LN size from patients with OeGC might also have prognostic value, thus making delineations of LNs essential for size estimation and the extraction of other imaging biomarkers. We hypothesized that a machine learning workflow is able to: (1) find digital H&E stained slides containing LNs, (2) create a scoring system providing degrees of certainty for the results, and (3) delineate LNs in those images. To train and validate the pipeline, we used 1695 H&E slides from the OE02 trial. The dataset was divided into training (80%) and validation (20%). The model was tested on an external dataset of 826 H&E slides from the OE05 trial. U-Net architecture was used to generate prediction maps from which predefined features were extracted. These features were subsequently used to train an XGBoost model to determine if a region truly contained a LN. With our innovative method, the balanced accuracies of the LN detection were 0.93 on the validation dataset (0.83 on the test dataset) compared to 0.81 (0.81) on the validation (test) datasets when using the standard method of thresholding U-Net predictions to arrive at a binary mask. Our method allowed for the creation of an "uncertain" category, and partly limited false-positive predictions on the external dataset. The mean Dice score was 0.73 (0.60) per-image and 0.66 (0.48) per-LN for the validation (test) datasets. Our pipeline detects images with LNs more accurately than conventional methods, and high-throughput delineation of LNs can facilitate future LN content analyses of large datasets.

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone for metastatic patients starting hormone therapy: 5-year follow-up results from the STAMPEDE randomised trial (NCT00268476)

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (AAP) previously demonstrated improved survival in STAMPEDE, a multiarm, multistage platform trial in men starting long-term hormone therapy for prostate cancer. This long-term analysis in metastatic patients was planned for 3 years after the first results. Standard-of-care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison randomised patients 1:1 to SOC-alone with or without daily abiraterone acetate 1000 mg + prednisolone 5 mg (SOC + AAP), continued until disease progression. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Metastatic disease risk group was classified retrospectively using baseline CT and bone scans by central radiological review and pathology reports. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, accounting for baseline stratification factors. One thousand and three patients were contemporaneously randomised (November 2011 to January 2014): median age 67 years; 94% newly-diagnosed; metastatic disease risk group: 48% high, 44% low, 8% unassessable; median PSA 97 ng/mL. At 6.1 years median follow-up, 329 SOC-alone deaths (118 low-risk, 178 high-risk) and 244 SOC + AAP deaths (75 low-risk, 145 high-risk) were reported. Adjusted HR = 0.60 (95% CI: 0.50-0.71; P = 0.31 × 10^-9 ) favoured SOC + AAP, with 5-years survival improved from 41% SOC-alone to 60% SOC + AAP. This was similar in low-risk (HR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76) and high-risk (HR = 0.54; 95% CI: 0.43-0.69) patients. Median and current maximum time on SOC + AAP was 2.4 and 8.1 years. Toxicity at 4 years postrandomisation was similar, with 16% patients in each group reporting grade 3 or higher toxicity. A sustained and substantial improvement in overall survival of all metastatic prostate cancer patients was achieved with SOC + abiraterone acetate + prednisolone, irrespective of metastatic disease risk group.

Docetaxel for Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Long-Term Survival Outcomes in the STAMPEDE Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

STAMPEDE previously reported adding upfront docetaxel improved overall survival for prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report long-term results for non-metastatic patients using, as primary outcome, metastatic progression-free survival (mPFS), an externally demonstrated surrogate for overall survival.

METHODS

Standard of care (SOC) was androgen deprivation therapy with or without radical prostate radiotherapy. A total of 460 SOC and 230 SOC plus docetaxel were randomly assigned 2:1. Standard survival methods and intention to treat were used. Treatment effect estimates were summarized from adjusted Cox regression models, switching to restricted mean survival time if non-proportional hazards. mPFS (new metastases, skeletal-related events, or prostate cancer death) had 70% power (α = 0.05) for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.70. Secondary outcome measures included overall survival, failure-free survival (FFS), and progression-free survival (PFS: mPFS, locoregional progression).

RESULTS

Median follow-up was 6.5 years with 142 mPFS events on SOC (3 year and 54% increases over previous report). There was no good evidence of an advantage to SOC plus docetaxel on mPFS (HR = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.66 to 1.19; P = .43); with 5-year mPFS 82% (95% CI = 78% to 87%) SOC plus docetaxel vs 77% (95% CI = 73% to 81%) SOC. Secondary outcomes showed evidence SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS (HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.55 to 0.88; P = .002) and PFS (nonproportional P = .03, restricted mean survival time difference = 5.8 months, 95% CI = 0.5 to 11.2; P = .03) but no good evidence of overall survival benefit (125 SOC deaths; HR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.21; P = .44). There was no evidence SOC plus docetaxel increased late toxicity: post 1 year, 29% SOC and 30% SOC plus docetaxel grade 3-5 toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

There is robust evidence that SOC plus docetaxel improved FFS and PFS (previously shown to increase quality-adjusted life-years), without excess late toxicity, which did not translate into benefit for longer-term outcomes. This may influence patient management in individual cases.

Quality of Life in Men With Prostate Cancer Randomly Allocated to Receive Docetaxel or Abiraterone in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE

Docetaxel and abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (AAP) both improve survival when commenced alongside standard of care (SOC) androgen deprivation therapy in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Thus, patient-reported quality of life (QOL) data may guide treatment choices.

METHODS

A group of patients within the STAMPEDE trial were contemporaneously enrolled with the possibility of being randomly allocated to receive either docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC. A mixed-model assessed QOL in those who had completed at least one QLQ-C30 + PR25 questionnaire. The primary outcome measure was difference in global-QOL (QLQ-C30 Q29&30) between patients allocated to docetaxel + SOC or AAP + SOC over the 2 years after random assignment, with a predefined criterion for clinically meaningful difference of > 4.0 points. Secondary outcome measures included longitudinal comparison of functional domains, pain, and fatigue, plus global-QOL at defined timepoints.

RESULTS

Five hundred fifteen patients (173 docetaxel + SOC and 342 AAP + SOC) were included. Baseline characteristics, proportion of missing data, and mean baseline global-QOL scores (docetaxel + SOC 77.8 and AAP + SOC 78.0) were similar. Over the 2 years following random assignment, the mean modeled global-QOL score was +3.9 points (95% CI, +0.5 to +7.2; P = .022) higher in patients allocated to AAP + SOC. Global-QOL was higher for patients allocated to AAP + SOC over the first year (+5.7 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +8.5; P < .001), particularly at 12 (+7.0 points, 95% CI, +3.0 to +11.0; P = .001) and 24 weeks (+8.3 points, 95% CI, +4.0 to +12.6; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported QOL was superior for patients allocated to receive AAP + SOC, compared with docetaxel + SOC over a 2-year period, narrowly missing the predefined value for clinical significance. Patients receiving AAP + SOC reported clinically meaningful higher global-QOL scores throughout the first year following random assignment.

Increasing frequency of gene copy number aberrations is associated with immunosuppression and predicts poor prognosis in gastric adenocarcinoma

BACKGROUND

Patients with Epstein-Barr virus-positive gastric cancers or those with microsatellite instability appear to have a favourable prognosis. However, the prognostic value of the chromosomal status (chromosome-stable (CS) versus chromosomal instable (CIN)) remains unclear in gastric cancer.

METHODS

Gene copy number aberrations (CNAs) were determined in 16 CIN-associated genes in a retrospective study including test and validation cohorts of patients with gastric cancer. Patients were stratified into CS (no CNA), CINlow (1-2 CNAs) or CINhigh (3 or more CNAs). The relationship between chromosomal status, clinicopathological variables, and overall survival (OS) was analysed. The relationship between chromosomal status, p53 expression, and tumour infiltrating immune cells was also assessed and validated externally.

RESULTS

The test and validation cohorts included 206 and 748 patients, respectively. CINlow and CINhigh were seen in 35.0 and 15.0 per cent of patients, respectively, in the test cohort, and 48.5 and 20.7 per cent in the validation cohort. Patients with CINhigh gastric cancer had the poorest OS in the test and validation cohorts. In multivariable analysis, CINlow, CINhigh and pTNM stage III-IV (P < 0.001) were independently associated with poor OS. CIN was associated with high p53 expression and low immune cell infiltration.

CONCLUSION

CIN may be a potential new prognostic biomarker independent of pTNM stage in gastric cancer. Patients with gastric cancer demonstrating CIN appear to be immunosuppressed, which might represent one of the underlying mechanisms explaining the poor survival and may help guide future therapeutic decisions.

Abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer: a meta-analysis of primary results from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

BACKGROUND

Men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer are treated with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) for 3 years, often combined with radiotherapy. We analysed new data from two randomised controlled phase 3 trials done in a multiarm, multistage platform protocol to assess the efficacy of adding abiraterone and prednisolone alone or with enzalutamide to ADT in this patient population.

METHODS

These open-label, phase 3 trials were done at 113 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restrictions) had high-risk (defined as node positive or, if node negative, having at least two of the following: tumour stage T3 or T4, Gleason sum score of 8-10, and prostate-specific antigen [PSA] concentration ≥40 ng/mL) or relapsing with high-risk features (≤12 months of total ADT with an interval of ≥12 months without treatment and PSA concentration ≥4 ng/mL with a doubling time of <6 months, or a PSA concentration ≥20 ng/mL, or nodal relapse) non-metastatic prostate cancer, and a WHO performance status of 0-2. Local radiotherapy (as per local guidelines, 74 Gy in 37 fractions to the prostate and seminal vesicles or the equivalent using hypofractionated schedules) was mandated for node negative and encouraged for node positive disease. In both trials, patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by use of a computerised algorithm, to ADT alone (control group), which could include surgery and luteinising-hormone-releasing hormone agonists and antagonists, or with oral abiraterone acetate (1000 mg daily) and oral prednisolone (5 mg daily; combination-therapy group). In the second trial with no overlapping controls, the combination-therapy group also received enzalutamide (160 mg daily orally). ADT was given for 3 years and combination therapy for 2 years, except if local radiotherapy was omitted when treatment could be delivered until progression. In this primary analysis, we used meta-analysis methods to pool events from both trials. The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was metastasis-free survival. Secondary endpoints were overall survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, biochemical failure-free survival, progression-free survival, and toxicity and adverse events. For 90% power and a one-sided type 1 error rate set to 1·25% to detect a target hazard ratio for improvement in metastasis-free survival of 0·75, approximately 315 metastasis-free survival events in the control groups was required. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population and safety according to the treatment started within randomised allocation. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00268476, and with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN78818544.

FINDINGS

Between Nov 15, 2011, and March 31, 2016, 1974 patients were randomly assigned to treatment. The first trial allocated 455 to the control group and 459 to combination therapy, and the second trial, which included enzalutamide, allocated 533 to the control group and 527 to combination therapy. Median age across all groups was 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median PSA 34 ng/ml (14·7-47); 774 (39%) of 1974 patients were node positive, and 1684 (85%) were planned to receive radiotherapy. With median follow-up of 72 months (60-84), there were 180 metastasis-free survival events in the combination-therapy groups and 306 in the control groups. Metastasis-free survival was significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups (median not reached, IQR not evaluable [NE]-NE) than in the control groups (not reached, 97-NE; hazard ratio [HR] 0·53, 95% CI 0·44-0·64, p<0·0001). 6-year metastasis-free survival was 82% (95% CI 79-85) in the combination-therapy group and 69% (66-72) in the control group. There was no evidence of a difference in metatasis-free survival when enzalutamide and abiraterone acetate were administered concurrently compared with abiraterone acetate alone (interaction HR 1·02, 0·70-1·50, p=0·91) and no evidence of between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·90). Overall survival (median not reached [IQR NE-NE] in the combination-therapy groups vs not reached [103-NE] in the control groups; HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·48-0·73, p<0·0001), prostate cancer-specific survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [NE-NE]; 0·49, 0·37-0·65, p<0·0001), biochemical failure-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs 86 months [83-NE]; 0·39, 0·33-0·47, p<0·0001), and progression-free-survival (not reached [NE-NE] vs not reached [103-NE]; 0·44, 0·36-0·54, p<0·0001) were also significantly longer in the combination-therapy groups than in the control groups. Adverse events grade 3 or higher during the first 24 months were, respectively, reported in 169 (37%) of 451 patients and 130 (29%) of 455 patients in the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone trial, respectively, and 298 (58%) of 513 patients and 172 (32%) of 533 patients of the combination-therapy and control groups of the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, respectively. The two most common events more frequent in the combination-therapy groups were hypertension (abiraterone trial: 23 (5%) in the combination-therapy group and six (1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 73 (14%) and eight (2%), respectively) and alanine transaminitis (abiraterone trial: 25 (6%) in the combination-therapy group and one (<1%) in control group; abiraterone and enzalutamide trial: 69 (13%) and four (1%), respectively). Seven grade 5 adverse events were reported: none in the control groups, three in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone group (one event each of rectal adenocarcinoma, pulmonary haemorrhage, and a respiratory disorder), and four in the abiraterone acetate and prednisolone with enzalutamide group (two events each of septic shock and sudden death).

INTERPRETATION

Among men with high-risk non-metastatic prostate cancer, combination therapy is associated with significantly higher rates of metastasis-free survival compared with ADT alone. Abiraterone acetate with prednisolone should be considered a new standard treatment for this population.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas.

Development and validation of deep learning classifiers to detect Epstein-Barr virus and microsatellite instability status in gastric cancer: a retrospective multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

Response to immunotherapy in gastric cancer is associated with microsatellite instability (or mismatch repair deficiency) and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) positivity. We therefore aimed to develop and validate deep learning-based classifiers to detect microsatellite instability and EBV status from routine histology slides.

METHODS

In this retrospective, multicentre study, we collected tissue samples from ten cohorts of patients with gastric cancer from seven countries (South Korea, Switzerland, Japan, Italy, Germany, the UK and the USA). We trained a deep learning-based classifier to detect microsatellite instability and EBV positivity from digitised, haematoxylin and eosin stained resection slides without annotating tumour containing regions. The performance of the classifier was assessed by within-cohort cross-validation in all ten cohorts and by external validation, for which we split the cohorts into a five-cohort training dataset and a five-cohort test dataset. We measured the area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) for detection of microsatellite instability and EBV status. Microsatellite instability and EBV status were determined to be detectable if the lower bound of the 95% CI for the AUROC was above 0·5.

FINDINGS

Across the ten cohorts, our analysis included 2823 patients with known microsatellite instability status and 2685 patients with known EBV status. In the within-cohort cross-validation, the deep learning-based classifier could detect microsatellite instability status in nine of ten cohorts, with AUROCs ranging from 0·597 (95% CI 0·522-0·737) to 0·836 (0·795-0·880) and EBV status in five of eight cohorts, with AUROCs ranging from 0·819 (0·752-0·841) to 0·897 (0·513-0·966). Training a classifier on the pooled training dataset and testing it on the five remaining cohorts resulted in high classification performance with AUROCs ranging from 0·723 (95% CI 0·676-0·794) to 0·863 (0·747-0·969) for detection of microsatellite instability and from 0·672 (0·403-0·989) to 0·859 (0·823-0·919) for detection of EBV status.

INTERPRETATION

Classifiers became increasingly robust when trained on pooled cohorts. After prospective validation, this deep learning-based tissue classification system could be used as an inexpensive predictive biomarker for immunotherapy in gastric cancer.

FUNDING

German Cancer Aid and German Federal Ministry of Health.

Public health impact of low-dose aspirin on colorectal cancer, cardiovascular disease and safety in the UK - Results from micro-simulation model

Background

Low-dose aspirin therapy reduces the risk of cardiovascular disease and may have a positive effect on the prevention of colorectal cancer. We evaluated the population-level expected effect of regular low-dose aspirin use on cardiovascular disease (CVD), colorectal cancer (CRC), gastrointestinal bleeding, symptomatic peptic ulcers, and intracranial hemorrhage, using a microsimulation study design.

Methods

We used individual-level state transition modeling to assess the impact of aspirin in populations aged 50–59 or 60–69 years old indicated for low-dose aspirin usage for primary or secondary CVD prevention. Model parameters were based on data from governmental agencies from the UK or recent publications.

Results

In the 50–59 years cohort, a decrease in incidence rates (IRs per 100 000 person years) of non-fatal CVD (-203 and −794) and fatal CVD (-97 and-381) was reported in the primary and secondary CVD prevention setting, respectively. The IR reduction of CRC (-96 and −93) was similar for primary and secondary CVD prevention. The IR increase of non-fatal (116 and 119) and fatal safety events (6 and 6) was similar for primary and secondary CVD prevention. Similar results were obtained for the 60–69 years cohort.

Conclusions

The decrease in fatal CVD and CRC events was larger than the increase in fatal safety events and this difference was more pronounced when low-dose aspirin was used for secondary compared to primary CVD prevention. These results provide a comprehensive image of the expected effect of regular low-dose aspirin therapy in a UK population indicated to use aspirin for CVD prevention.

Accessing routinely collected health data to improve clinical trials: recent experience of access

BACKGROUND

Routinely collected electronic health records (EHRs) have the potential to enhance randomised controlled trials (RCTs) by facilitating recruitment and follow-up. Despite this, current EHR use is minimal in UK RCTs, in part due to ongoing concerns about the utility (reliability, completeness, accuracy) and accessibility of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to document the process, timelines and challenges of the application process to help improve the service both for the applicants and data holders.

METHODS

This is a qualitative paper providing a descriptive narrative from one UK clinical trials unit (MRC CTU at UCL) on the experience of two trial teams' application process to access data from three large English national datasets: National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS), National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR) and NHS Digital to establish themes for discussion. The underpinning reason for applying for the data was to compare EHRs with data collected through case report forms in two RCTs, Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN 74358648) and PATCH (ISRCTN 70406718).

RESULTS

The Add-Aspirin trial, which had a pre-planned embedded sub-study to assess EHR, received data from NCRAS 13 months after the first application. In the PATCH trial, the decision to request data was made whilst the trial was recruiting. The study received data after 8 months from NICOR and 15 months for NHS Digital following final application submission. This concluded in May 2020. Prior to application submission, significant time and effort was needed particularly in relation to the PATCH trial where negotiations over consent and data linkage took many years.

CONCLUSIONS

Our experience demonstrates that data access can be a prolonged and complex process. This is compounded if multiple data sources are required for the same project. This needs to be factored in when planning to use EHR within RCTs and is best considered prior to conception of the trial. Data holders and researchers are endeavouring to simplify and streamline the application process so that the potential of EHR can be realised for clinical trials.

Statins as Potential Chemoprevention or Therapeutic Agents in Cancer: a Model for Evaluating Repurposed Drugs

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Repurposing established medicines for a new therapeutic indication potentially has important global and societal impact. The high costs and slow pace of new drug development have increased interest in more cost-effective repurposed drugs, particularly in the cancer arena. The conventional drug development pathway and evidence framework are not designed for drug repurposing and there is currently no consensus on establishing the evidence base before embarking on a large, resource intensive, potential practice changing phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). Numerous observational studies have suggested a potential role for statins as a repurposed drug for cancer chemoprevention and therapy, and we review the strength of the cumulative evidence here.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the setting of cancer, a potential repurposed drug, like statins, typically goes through a cyclical history, with initial use for several years in another disease setting, prior to epidemiological research identifying a possible chemo-protective effect. However, further information is required, including review of RCT data in the initial disease setting with exploration of cancer outcomes. Additionally, more contemporary methods should be considered, such as Mendelian randomization and pharmaco-epidemiological research with "target" trial design emulation using electronic health records. Pre-clinical and traditional observational data potentially support the role of statins in the treatment of cancer; however, randomised trial evidence is not supportive. Evaluation of contemporary methods provides little added support for the use of statin therapy in cancer. We provide complementary evidence of alternative study designs to enable a robust critical appraisal from a number of sources of the go/no-go decision for a prospective phase III RCT of statins in the treatment of cancer.

Transdermal oestradiol for androgen suppression in prostate cancer: long-term cardiovascular outcomes from the randomised Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme

BACKGROUND

Androgen suppression is a central component of prostate cancer management but causes substantial long-term toxicity. Transdermal administration of oestradiol (tE2) circumvents first-pass hepatic metabolism and, therefore, should avoid the cardiovascular toxicity seen with oral oestrogen and the oestrogen-depletion effects seen with luteinising hormone releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa). We present long-term cardiovascular follow-up data from the Prostate Adenocarcinoma Transcutaneous Hormone (PATCH) trial programme.

METHODS

PATCH is a seamless phase 2/3, randomised, multicentre trial programme at 52 study sites in the UK. Men with locally advanced or metastatic prostate cancer were randomly allocated (1:2 from August, 2007 then 1:1 from February, 2011) to either LHRHa according to local practice or tE2 patches (four 100 μg patches per 24 h, changed twice weekly, reducing to three patches twice weekly if castrate at 4 weeks [defined as testosterone ≤1·7 nmol/L]). Randomisation was done using a computer-based minimisation algorithm and was stratified by several factors, including disease stage, age, smoking status, and family history of cardiac disease. The primary outcome of this analysis was cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Cardiovascular events, including heart failure, acute coronary syndrome, thromboembolic stroke, and other thromboembolic events, were confirmed using predefined criteria and source data. Sudden or unexpected deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular category if a confirmatory post-mortem report was available and as other relevant events if no post-mortem report was available. PATCH is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN70406718; the study is ongoing and adaptive.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 14, 2007, and July 30, 2019, 1694 men were randomly allocated either LHRHa (n=790) or tE2 patches (n=904). Overall, median follow-up was 3·9 (IQR 2·4-7·0) years. Respective castration rates at 1 month and 3 months were 65% and 93% among patients assigned LHRHa and 83% and 93% among those allocated tE2. 157 events from 145 men met predefined cardiovascular criteria, with a further ten sudden deaths with no post-mortem report (total 167 events in 153 men). 26 (2%) of 1694 patients had fatal cardiovascular events, 15 (2%) of 790 assigned LHRHa and 11 (1%) of 904 allocated tE2. The time to first cardiovascular event did not differ between treatments (hazard ratio 1·11, 95% CI 0·80-1·53; p=0·54 [including sudden deaths without post-mortem report]; 1·20, 0·86-1·68; p=0·29 [confirmed group only]). 30 (34%) of 89 cardiovascular events in patients assigned tE2 occurred more than 3 months after tE2 was stopped or changed to LHRHa. The most frequent adverse events were gynaecomastia (all grades), with 279 (38%) events in 730 patients who received LHRHa versus 690 (86%) in 807 patients who received tE2 (p<0·0001) and hot flushes (all grades) in 628 (86%) of those who received LHRHa versus 280 (35%) who received tE2 (p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Long-term data comparing tE2 patches with LHRHa show no evidence of a difference between treatments in cardiovascular mortality or morbidity. Oestrogens administered transdermally should be reconsidered for androgen suppression in the management of prostate cancer.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Genomic Profiles of De Novo High- and Low-Volume Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Results From a 2-Stage Feasibility and Prevalence Study in the STAMPEDE Trial

PURPOSE

The STAMPEDE trial recruits men with newly diagnosed, high-risk, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. To ascertain the feasibility of targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) and the prevalence of baseline genomic aberrations, we sequenced tumor and germline DNA from patients with metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) starting long-term androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT).

METHODS

In a 2-stage approach, archival, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) prostate tumor core biopsy samples were retrospectively subjected to 2 tNGS assays. Prospective enrollment enabled validation using tNGS in tumor and germline DNA.

RESULTS

In stage 1, tNGS data were obtained from 185 tumors from 287 patients (65%); 98% had de novo mPCa. We observed PI3K pathway aberrations in 43%, due to PTEN copy-number loss (34%) and/or activating mutations in PIK3 genes or AKT (18%) and TP53 mutation or loss in 33%. No androgen receptor (AR) aberrations were detected; RB1 loss was observed in < 1%. In stage 2, 93 (92%) of 101 FFPE tumors (biopsy obtained within 8 months) were successfully sequenced prospectively. The prevalence of DNA damage repair (DDR) deficiency was 14% (somatic) and 5% (germline). BRCA2 mutations and mismatch repair gene mutations were exclusive to high-volume disease. Aberrant DDR (22% v 15%), Wnt pathway (16% v 4%), and chromatin remodeling (16% v 8%) were all more common in high-volume compared with low-volume disease, but the small numbers limited statistical comparisons.

CONCLUSION

Prospective genomic characterization is feasible using residual diagnostic tumor samples and reveals that the genomic landscapes of de novo high-volume mPCa and advanced metastatic prostate cancer have notable similarities (PI3K pathway, DDR, Wnt, chromatin remodeling) and differences (AR, RB1). These results will inform the design and conduct of biomarker-directed trials in men with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer.

Impact of sex and age on chemotherapy efficacy, toxicity and survival in localised oesophagogastric cancer: A pooled analysis of 3265 individual patient data from four large randomised trials (OE02, OE05, MAGIC and ST03)

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of large-scale randomised data evaluating the impact of sex and age in patients undergoing chemotherapy followed by potentially curative surgery for oesophagogastric cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Individual patient data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated for patients aged <70 and ≥ 70 years, as well as between males and females. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and, ≥grade III toxicities were compared using logistic regression models to calculate odds ratios. All analyses were adjusted for the type of chemotherapy received.

RESULTS

3265 patients were included for survival analysis (2668 [82%] male, 597 [18%] female; 2627 (80%) <70 years, 638 (20%) ≥70 years). A significant improvement in overall survival (OS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) and disease-specific survival (DSS) (HR: 0.78; p < 0.001) was observed in females compared with males. No significant differences in OS (HR: 1.11; p = 0.045) or DSS (HR: 1.01; p = 0.821) were observed in older patients compared with younger patients. For patients who underwent resection, older patients (15% vs 10%; p = 0.03) and female patients (14% vs 10%, p = 0.10) were more likely to achieve favourable Mandard TRG scores. Females experienced significantly more ≥grade III nausea (10% vs 5%; p≤0.001), vomiting (10% vs 4%; p≤0.001) and diarrhoea (9% vs 4%; p≤0.001) than males.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large pooled analysis using prospective randomised trial data, females had significantly improved survival while experiencing more gastrointestinal toxicities. Older patients achieved comparable survival to younger patients and thus, dependent on fitness, should be offered the same treatment paradigm.

Histological intratumoral heterogeneity in pretreatment esophageal cancer biopsies predicts survival benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy: results from the UK MRC OE02 trial

Despite the use of multimodal treatment, survival of esophageal cancer (EC) patients remains poor. One proposed explanation for the relatively poor response to cytotoxic chemotherapy is intratumor heterogeneity. The aim was to establish a statistical model to objectively measure intratumor heterogeneity of the proportion of tumor (IHPoT) and to use this newly developed method to measure IHPoT in the pretreatment biopsies from from EC patients recruited to the OE02 trial. A statistical mixed effect model (MEM) was established for estimating IHPoT based on variation in hematoxylin/eosin (HE) stained pretreatment biopsy pieces from the same individual in 218 OE02 trial patients (103 treated by chemotherapy and surgery (chemo+surgery); 115 patients treated by surgery alone). The relationship between IHPoT, prognosis, chemotherapy survival benefit, and clinicopathological variables was assessed. About 97 (44.5%) and 121 (55.5%) ECs showed high and low IHPoT, respectively. There was no significant difference in IHPoT between surgery (median [range], 0.1637 [0-3.17]) and chemo+surgery (median [range], 0.1692 [0-2.69]) patients (P = 0.43). Chemo+surgery patients with low IHPoT had a significantly longer survival than surgery patients (HR = 1.81, 95% CI: 1.20-2.75, P = 0.005). There was no survival difference between chemo+surgery and surgery patients with high IHPoT (HR = 1.15, 95% CI: 0.72-1.81, P = 0.566). This is the first study suggesting that IHPoT measured in the pretreatment biopsy can predict chemotherapy survival benefit in EC patients. IHPoT may represent a clinically useful biomarker for patient treatment stratification. Future studies should determine if pathologists can reliably estimate IHPoT.

Comparative quality of life in patients randomized contemporaneously to docetaxel or abiraterone in the STAMPEDE trial

14

Background: Docetaxel (DOC) and abiraterone (ABI) both improve overall survival (OS) in men with locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC) but no head to head trials compare the 2 agents. STAMPEDE, a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial, recruited patients (pts) to treatments including DOC or ABI between Nov-11 and Mar-13. There was no evidence OS differed between DOC or ABI, thus quality of life (QOL) may increasingly inform treatment options. Methods: QOL scores were analysed in pts contemporaneously randomised to receive DOC or ABI, in addition to standard of care treatment. Self-assessment QOL questionnaires EORTC QLQ C30 and PR25 were completed during treatment and follow-up. These analyses focus on average global QOL over the first 2 years after randomisation, using repeated measures analysis, plus cross-sectional analyses at 3, 6, 12 and 24 months. A score difference of ≥4 points was pre-defined as clinically meaningful. Results: 173 men randomised to DOC and 342 men randomised to ABI participated in the QOL sub-study and contributed to this analysis. Baseline characteristics and proportion of missing data were similar between groups. Baseline global QOL scores were similar (mean (sd): DOC 77.8 (20) and ABI 78.0 (19.3)). Average global QOL over 2 years was higher in pts randomised to ABI than DOC, although the difference was statistically significant it did not meet the pre-defined clinical parameter (+3.9, 95%CI 0.6 to 7.1, p=0.021). Cross-sectional analyses showed clinically meaningful superior QOL in the ABI group at 3 and 6 months (+6.6, 95%CI 2.6 to 10.7, p=0.001; +8.0, 95%CI 3.6 to 12.3, p<0.001), but not at 1 or 2 years (+1.3, 95%CI -3.0 to 5.6, p=0.545; +4.5, 95%CI -0.25 to 9.2, p=0.063). An exploratory analysis indicated average QOL for pts with metastatic disease (n=207) was better in the ABI group (+4.44, 95%CI 0.2 to 8.6, p=0.036). Conclusion: Global QOL was significantly higher in the first 2 years of treatment for the ABI group compared to the DOC group, though did not meet the pre-defined clinically meaningful threshold. The majority of difference was seen in the first year of treatment. This should be considered when discussing treatment options with pts. Clinical trial information: NCT00268476.

The role of aspirin in the prevention of ovarian, endometrial and cervical cancers

Drug repurposing is the application of an existing licenced drug for a new indication and potentially provides a faster and cheaper approach to developing new anti-cancer agents. Gynaecological cancers contribute significantly to the global cancer burden, highlighting the need for low cost, widely accessible therapies. A large body of evidence supports the role of aspirin as an anti-cancer agent, and a number of randomized trials are currently underway aiming to assess the potential benefit of aspirin in the treatment of cancer. This review summarizes the evidence underpinning aspirin use for the prevention of the development and recurrence of gynaecological cancers (ovarian, endometrial and cervical) and potential mechanisms of action.

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of the Value of Microsatellite Instability As a Biomarker in Gastric Cancer

PURPOSE

In the CLASSIC and MAGIC trials, microsatellite instability (MSI)-high status was a favorable prognostic and potential negative predictive factor for neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy in resectable gastric cancer (GC). Given the low prevalence of MSI-high status in GC and its association with other positive prognostic variables, large data sets are needed to draw robust evidence of its prognostic/predictive value.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multinational, individual-patient-data meta-analysis of the prognostic/predictive role of MSI in patients with resectable GC enrolled in the MAGIC, CLASSIC, ARTIST, and ITACA-S trials. Prognostic analyses used multivariable Cox models (MVM). The predictive role of MSI was assessed both in an all-comer population and in MAGIC and CLASSIC trials by MVM testing of the interaction of treatment (chemotherapy plus surgery v surgery) with MSI.

RESULTS

MSI status was available for 1,556 patients: 121 (7.8%) had MSI-high status; 576 were European, and 980 were Asian. In MSI-high versus MSI-low/microsatellite stable (MSS) comparisons, the 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) was 71.8% (95% CI, 63.8% to 80.7%) versus 52.3% (95% CI, 49.7% to 55.1%); the 5-year overall survival (OS) was 77.5% (95% CI, 70.0% to 85.8%) versus 59.3% (95% CI, 56.6% to 62.1%). In MVM, MSI was associated with longer DFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.88; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.76; P < .001) and OS (HR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.17 to 2.73; P = .008), as were pT, pN, ethnicity, and treatment. Patients with MSI-low/MSS GC benefitted from chemotherapy plus surgery: the 5-year DFS compared with surgery only was 57% versus 41% (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.79), and the 5-year OS was 62% versus 53% (HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.94). Conversely, those with MSI-high GC did not: the 5-year DFS was 70% versus 77% (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.53 to 3.04), and the 5-year OS was 75% versus 83% (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 0.55 to 4.12).

CONCLUSION

In patients with resectable primary GC, MSI is a robust prognostic marker that should be adopted as a stratification factor by clinical trials. Chemotherapy omission and/or immune checkpoint blockade should be investigated prospectively in MSI-high GCs according to clinically and pathologically defined risk of relapse.

Addition of docetaxel to hormonal therapy in low- and high-burden metastatic hormone sensitive prostate cancer: long-term survival results from the STAMPEDE trial

BACKGROUND

STAMPEDE has previously reported that the use of upfront docetaxel improved overall survival (OS) for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. We report on long-term outcomes stratified by metastatic burden for M1 patients.

METHODS

We randomly allocated patients in 2 : 1 ratio to standard-of-care (SOC; control group) or SOC + docetaxel. Metastatic disease burden was categorised using retrospectively-collected baseline staging scans where available. Analysis used Cox regression models, adjusted for stratification factors, with emphasis on restricted mean survival time where hazards were non-proportional.

RESULTS

Between 05 October 2005 and 31 March 2013, 1086 M1 patients were randomised to receive SOC (n = 724) or SOC + docetaxel (n = 362). Metastatic burden was assessable for 830/1086 (76%) patients; 362 (44%) had low and 468 (56%) high metastatic burden. Median follow-up was 78.2 months. There were 494 deaths on SOC (41% more than the previous report). There was good evidence of benefit of docetaxel over SOC on OS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95, P = 0.009) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P = 0.827). Analysis of other outcomes found evidence of benefit for docetaxel over SOC in failure-free survival (HR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.57-0.76, P < 0.001) and progression-free survival (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.59-0.81, P < 0.001) with no evidence of heterogeneity of docetaxel effect between metastatic burden sub-groups (interaction P > 0.5 in each case). There was no evidence that docetaxel resulted in late toxicity compared with SOC: after 1 year, G3-5 toxicity was reported for 28% SOC and 27% docetaxel (in patients still on follow-up at 1 year without prior progression).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinically significant benefit in survival for upfront docetaxel persists at longer follow-up, with no evidence that benefit differed by metastatic burden. We advocate that upfront docetaxel is considered for metastatic hormone naïve prostate cancer patients regardless of metastatic burden.

DNA epigenetic signature predictive of benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in oesophageal adenocarcinoma: results from the MRC OE02 trial

BACKGROUND

DNA methylation signatures describing distinct histological subtypes of oesophageal cancer have been reported. We studied DNA methylation in samples from the MRC OE02 phase III trial, which randomised patients with resectable oesophageal cancer to surgery alone (S) or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS).

AIM

The aim of the study was to identify epigenetic signatures predictive of chemotherapy benefit in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) from the OE02 trial and validate the findings in an independent cohort.

METHODS

DNA methylation was analysed using the Illumina GoldenGate platform on surgically resected OAC specimens from patients in the OE02 trial. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to select probes predictive of survival in the CS arm. Non-negative matrix factorisation was used to perform clustering and delineate DNA methylation signatures. The findings were validated in an independent cohort of patients with gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

A total of 229 patients with OAC were analysed from the OE02 trial (118 in the CS arm and 111 in the S arm). There was no difference in DNA methylation status between the CS and S arms. A metagene signature was created by dichotomising samples into two clusters. In cluster 1, patients in the CS arm had significant overall survival (OS) benefit (median OS CS: 931 days vs. S: 536 days [HR: 1.54, P = 0.031]). In cluster 2, patients in the CS arm had similar (or worse) OS compared with patients in the S arm (CS: 348 days vs. S: 472 days [HR: 0.70, P = 0.1], and test of interaction was significant (p = 0.005). In the validation cohort (n = 13), there was no difference in DNA methylation status in paired pre- and post-treatment samples. When the epigenetic signature was applied, cluster 1 samples had better OS (median OS, cluster 1: 1174 days vs. cluster 2: 392 days, HR: 3.47, p = 0.059) CONCLUSIONS: This is the first and largest study of DNA methylation in patients with OAC uniformly treated in a randomised phase III trial. We identified an epigenetic signature that may serve as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy benefit in OAC.

Safety and Efficacy of the Addition of Lapatinib to Perioperative Chemotherapy for Resectable HER2-Positive Gastroesophageal Adenocarcinoma: A Randomized Phase 2 Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Perioperative chemotherapy and surgery are a standard of care for operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Anti-HER2 therapy improves survival in patients with advanced HER2-positive disease. The safety and feasibility of adding lapatinib to perioperative chemotherapy should be assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety of adding lapatinib to epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX) chemotherapy and to establish a recommended dose regimen for a phase 3 trial.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2 randomized, open-label trial comparing standard ECX (sECX: 3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of ECX with modified ECX plus lapatinib (mECX+L). This multicenter national trial was conducted in 29 centers in the United Kingdom in patients with histologically proven, HER2-positive, operable gastroesophageal adenocarcinoma. Registration for ERBB/HER2 testing took place from February 25, 2013, to April 19, 2016, and randomization took place between May 24, 2013, and April 21, 2016. Data were analyzed May 10, 2017, to May 25, 2017.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 open-label to sECX (3 preoperative and 3 postoperative cycles of 50 mg/m2 of intravenous epirubicin on day 1, 60 mg/m2 intravenous cisplatin on day 1, 1250 mg/m2 of oral capecitabine on days 1 through 21) or mECX+L (ECX plus lapatinib days 1 through 21 in each cycle and as 6 maintenance doses). The first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm were treated with 1000 mg/m2 of capecitabine and 1250 mg of lapatinib per day, after which preoperative toxic effects were reviewed according to predefined criteria to determine doses for subsequent patients.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Proportion of patients experiencing grade 3 or 4 diarrhea with mECX+L. A rate of 20% or less was considered acceptable. No formal comparison between arms was planned.

RESULTS

Between February 2013, and April 2016, 441 patients underwent central HER2 testing and 63 (14%) were classified as HER2 positive. Forty-six patients were randomized; 44 (24 sECX, 20 mECX+L) are included in this analysis. Two of the first 10 patients in the mECX+L arm reported preoperative grade 3 diarrhea; thus, no dose increase was made. The primary endpoint of preoperative grade 3 or 4 diarrhea rates were 0 of 24 in the sECX arm (0%) and 4 of 20 in the mECX+L arm (21%). One of 24 in the sECX arm and 3 of 20 in the mECX+L arm stopped preoperative treatment early, and for 4 of 19 in the mECX+L arm, lapatinib dose was reduced. Postoperative complication rates were similar in each arm.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Administration of 1250 mg of lapatinib per day in combination with ECX chemotherapy was feasible with some increase in toxic effects, which did not compromise operative management.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN.org identifier: 46020948; clinicaltrialsregister.eu identifier: 2006-000811-12.

Targeted next-generation sequencing (tNGS) of metastatic castrate-sensitive prostate cancer (M1 CSPC): A pilot molecular analysis in the STAMPEDE multi-center clinical trial

5019

Background: The STAMPEDE trial recruits men with high risk prostate cancer commencing first line systemic therapy. In a pilot study to ascertain the feasibility of tNGS and the prevalence of common genomic aberrations, we tested a commercial clinically-accredited assay on tumor blocks and present data obtained in the largest cohort of treatment-naïve M1 CSPC to date. Methods: Archival FFPE blocks were retrieved from trial participants and a single block submitted for sequencing by a Foundation Medicine. Inc. tNGS assay that includes 395 genes. Results: We successfully obtained tNGS data on 115 (62%) of 186 patients enrolled between Nov-2011 and April-2017 at 15 UK participating centers. The median age was 70 years (IQR 44-85); 97% had de novo M1 disease and 83% Gleason score ≥8. We observed PTEN deficiency (34%) due to copy-number loss (25%) or mutation (9%); TP53 mutation or loss (33%) and aberrations in PI3K signaling (16%), genes involved in DNA repair (14%), Wnt signaling (14%) and cell cycle control (6%). In total, these aberrations were observed in 76% of patients, with 35% harboring two or more. No androgen receptor ( AR) mutations were detected. Conclusions: The prevalence of PTEN deficiency is comparable with that observed in mCRPC consistent with this being a feature of metastatic disease. In contrast, AR mutations are not observed in this treatment-naïve group. The prevalence of DNA repair deficiency is less than observed in mCRPC but more than reported in prostatectomy cohorts. Although it is possible to use FFPE biopsies for tNGS, the test failure-rate poises challenges to evaluating treatments in low prevalence biomarker-defined groups. These data will inform the design and conduct of biomarker-directed trials.

Impact of age and sex on chemotherapy (CTx) efficacy, toxicity and survival in early oesophagogastric (OG) cancer: A pooled analysis of 3265 patients from four large randomised trials (OE02, OE05, MAGIC & ST03)

4022

Background: No large scale randomised data exists evaluating the impact of age and sex in patients (pts) undergoing potentially curative surgery and CTx for OG cancer. However, differences in age and sex may be contributing factors to variability in CTx dose-response and toxicity which could also impact survival. Methods: Data from four prospective randomised controlled trials were pooled using a two-stage meta-analysis. For survival data, hazard ratios were calculated for pts <70 and ≥70 years and between males and females. Pts were allocated to receive neoadjuvant platinum and fluoropyrimidine +/- anthracycline and bevacizumab. Mandard tumour regression grade (TRG) and prevalence of ≥G3 toxicities were compared according to the same subgroups using Chi-squared test. Results: 3265 pts were included for survival analysis (2668 (82%) M, 597 (18%) F; 2626 (80%) <70, 639 (20%) ≥70). A significant improvement in disease specific survival (DSS) (HR 0.78; p<0.001) and OS (HR 0.78; p<0.001) was observed in females vs males. Although OS was worse in older vs younger pts (HR 1.15; p=0.01) no significant difference in DSS was observed (HR 1.04; p=0.52). For those pts who underwent resection following neoadjuvant CTx, older patients (19 vs 13%; p=0.01) and female patients (19% vs 13%, p=0.02) were more likely to achieve more favourable Mandard TRG 1&2 scores. Older pts experienced significantly more ≥G3 neutropaenia (30 vs 22%; p=0.004). Females experienced significantly more ≥G3 nausea (12 vs 7%; p=0.006), vomiting (10 vs 5%; p≤0.001) and diarrhoea (9 vs 4%; p=0.001). Conclusions: This study represents the largest pooled analysis of age and sex differences on safety of neoadjuvant CTx and survival in early OG cancer. Females had significantly improved survival while experiencing more GI toxicities. Older pts achieved comparable DSS and thus, dependent on fitness, should be offered the same treatment paradigm as younger pts.

Aspirin as adjuvant treatment for colorectal cancer: Rationale and progress of the Add-Aspirin trial

TPS3624

Background: There is now a body of evidence indicating a potential role for aspirin in colorectal cancer (CRC) prevention. In cardiovascular trials, effects on incidence of cancer metastases and short-term mortality suggest further possible roles in the treatment setting, supported by observational studies of aspirin use after cancer diagnosis. In the prevention setting, aspirin use has been limited by toxicity concerns, particularly of serious bleeding. In the adjuvant setting, benefits associated with reducing recurrence and subsequent treatment may outweigh these risks. The Add-Aspirin trial will investigate this, and will also consider possible mechanisms of action for aspirin effects, including the impact of PIK3CA mutations, where there are currently several theories and conflicting data. Methods: Add-Aspirin (ISRCTN74358648) is an international, phase III, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial recruiting patients who have undergone surgery and relevant adjuvant treatment for stage II or III CRC, as well as those with completely resected CRC liver metastases. Parallel randomised cohorts will address the question in breast, gastro-oesophageal and prostate cancer. Participants take aspirin 100mg daily for an 8-week run-in, to assess adherence and toxicity, and those suitable to proceed are randomised (1:1:1) to aspirin 100mg, aspirin 300mg or placebo daily for at least 5 years. A number of measures – including blood pressure control and PPI use where relevant - are in place to reduce bleeding risk. The primary outcome is disease-free survival (target hazard ratio = 0.8, n = 2600 in 5 years) with a long term analysis of survival planned across the tumour groups. Translational work includes a sub-study monitoring urinary thromboxane B2 as a marker of platelet activation in a subgroup (n = 500) to investigate mechanisms of action. Add-Aspirin opened in 2015 and recruited 1505 CRC patients during the first 3 years from 137 UK centres. 1282 (85%) proceeded to randomisation. A pre-planned feasibility analysis of run-in data (n = 2253 across all 4 tumour groups) provided reassuring data on safety, tolerability and adherence, and recruitment continues with centres in India and Republic of Ireland recently joining. Clinical trial information: 74358648.

MSI-GC-01: Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of microsatellite instability (MSI) and gastric cancer (GC) from four randomized clinical trials (RCTs)

66

Background: In CLASSIC and MAGIC, MSI was a good prognostic factor, and adjuvant/perioperative chemotherapy had null/detrimental effect. Given the low prevalence of MSI in GCs and its association with other good prognostic variables, larger datasets are needed to draw more robust evidences on its specific prognostic/predictive impact. Methods: This was a multinational IPD meta-analysis of resectable GC pts enrolled in MAGIC, CLASSIC, ARTIST, ITACA-S. Data on pts’ demographics (age, sex, and race), primary site (stomach versus junctional), histotype (intestinal vs. other), T/N stage (7th TNM), treatment received (multimodal therapy vs. surgery alone) and MSI were pooled. Univariable and multivariable associations with disease-free survival (DFS)/overall survival (OS) were assessed. The predictive role of MSI according to treatment received was assessed overall and in the 2 RCTs with a surgery alone arm (MAGIC+CLASSIC). Results: We pooled 1,552 pts with available MSI status: 121 (7,8%) were MSI, 572 Caucasian/980 Asian. In MSI versus MSS subgroups, 5-y DFS was 71.8% (95% CI: 63.8-80.7%) versus 52.3% (49.6-55.0%) (HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.72; p < 0.001); 5-y OS 77.4% (69.9-85.8%) versus 59.2% (56.6-62.0%) (HR = 0.50, 95% CI 0.34-0-74; p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, MSI was independently associated with DFS (HR = 0.48 [0.33-0.70]; p < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.48 [0.29-0.81]; p = 0.005), as T/N/race/treatment. Conclusions: In resectable primary GC, MSI is an independent good prognostic marker that should be adopted as stratification factor in future RCTs. Chemotherapy omission and/or immune checkpoint blockade should be prospectively investigated in MSI-high GCs according to the clinically-defined risk of relapse. [Table: see text]

DNA methylation signature predictive of benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy in esophageal adenocarcinoma: Results from the MRC OEO2 phase III trial

43

Background: Platinum and 5-Fluorouracil (5FU) neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by surgery is one of the standard approaches for patients with resectable EAC. To date, there are no predictive biomarkers of chemotherapy benefit. We hypothesize that DNA methylation of genes in key biologic and oncogenic pathways predict for chemotherapy benefit in EAC. Methods: In the OE02 trial, 802 patients with resectable esophageal carcinoma were randomised to surgery alone (S) versus two cycles of cisplatin and 5FU chemotherapy followed by surgery (CS). DNA was extracted from 213 EAC resection specimens (110 from the (CS) arm, 103 from the (S) arm). DNA methylation was analyzed at 1505 CpG sites within 807 genes using the Illumina GoldenGate platform. Cox proportional hazard analysis was performed to identify predictive markers of survival in (CS) arm; non-negative matrix factorization (NMF) was used to delineate methylation signatures. Results: Methylation status of 1505 CpG sites had no statistical difference between the (CS) and (S) arms. In the (CS) arm, 87 (5.7%) CpG sites were initially identified as promising candidates in univariate analysis (p < 0.05 cutoff). NMF generated a 4 CpG site signature which divided patients into poor risk and good risk. Genes involved in the signature include RUNX1T1, CCND2, MST1R and MMP14. Survival was significantly different between poor risk and good risk in (CS) arm (HR 0.32, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.52, p < 0.0001). No difference in survival was detected in the surgery arm (HR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.80, p = 0.48), suggesting the signature served as a predictive and not prognostic biomarker. Methylation signature remained an independent predictor of survival in multivariate analysis with clinicopathologic factors (along with age and vascular invasion). Conclusions: Chemotherapy does not appear to change methylation status of EAC. Hypermethylation of RUNX1T1, CCND2 and hypomethylation of MST1R and MMP14 leads to significantly decreased benefit from chemotherapy in EA. We describe an epigenetic signature which may serve as a predictive biomarker for chemotherapy benefit using data form the largest bank of DNA methylation in EA reported to date.

Radiotherapy to the primary tumour for newly diagnosed, metastatic prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Based on previous findings, we hypothesised that radiotherapy to the prostate would improve overall survival in men with metastatic prostate cancer, and that the benefit would be greatest in patients with a low metastatic burden. We aimed to compare standard of care for metastatic prostate cancer, with and without radiotherapy.

METHODS

We did a randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 117 hospitals in Switzerland and the UK. Eligible patients had newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer. We randomly allocated patients open-label in a 1:1 ratio to standard of care (control group) or standard of care and radiotherapy (radiotherapy group). Randomisation was stratified by hospital, age at randomisation, nodal involvement, WHO performance status, planned androgen deprivation therapy, planned docetaxel use (from December, 2015), and regular aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use. Standard of care was lifelong androgen deprivation therapy, with up-front docetaxel permitted from December, 2015. Men allocated radiotherapy received either a daily (55 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks) or weekly (36 Gy in six fractions over 6 weeks) schedule that was nominated before randomisation. The primary outcome was overall survival, measured as the number of deaths; this analysis had 90% power with a one-sided α of 2·5% for a hazard ratio (HR) of 0·75. Secondary outcomes were failure-free survival, progression-free survival, metastatic progression-free survival, prostate cancer-specific survival, and symptomatic local event-free survival. Analyses used Cox proportional hazards and flexible parametric models, adjusted for stratification factors. The primary outcome analysis was by intention to treat. Two prespecified subgroup analyses tested the effects of prostate radiotherapy by baseline metastatic burden and radiotherapy schedule. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00268476.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 22, 2013, and Sept 2, 2016, 2061 men underwent randomisation, 1029 were allocated the control and 1032 radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced, with a median age of 68 years (IQR 63-73) and median amount of prostate-specific antigen of 97 ng/mL (33-315). 367 (18%) patients received early docetaxel. 1082 (52%) participants nominated the daily radiotherapy schedule before randomisation and 979 (48%) the weekly schedule. 819 (40%) men had a low metastatic burden, 1120 (54%) had a high metastatic burden, and the metastatic burden was unknown for 122 (6%). Radiotherapy improved failure-free survival (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·68-0·84; p<0·0001) but not overall survival (0·92, 0·80-1·06; p=0·266). Radiotherapy was well tolerated, with 48 (5%) adverse events (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group grade 3-4) reported during radiotherapy and 37 (4%) after radiotherapy. The proportion reporting at least one severe adverse event (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade 3 or worse) was similar by treatment group in the safety population (398 [38%] with control and 380 [39%] with radiotherapy).

INTERPRETATION

Radiotherapy to the prostate did not improve overall survival for unselected patients with newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Astellas, Clovis Oncology, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

A seven-Gene Signature assay improves prognostic risk stratification of perioperative chemotherapy treated gastroesophageal cancer patients from the MAGIC trial

Background

Following neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable gastroesophageal cancer, lymph node metastasis is the only validated prognostic variable; however, within lymph node groups there is still heterogeneity with risk of relapse. We hypothesized that gene profiles from neoadjuvant chemotherapy treated resection specimens from gastroesophageal cancer patients can be used to define prognostic risk groups to identify patients at risk for relapse.

Patients and methods

The Medical Research Council Adjuvant Gastric Infusional Chemotherapy (MAGIC) trial (n = 202 with high quality RNA) samples treated with perioperative chemotherapy were profiled for a custom gastric cancer gene panel using the NanoString platform. Genes associated with overall survival (OS) were identified using penalized and standard Cox regression, followed by generation of risk scores and development of a NanoString biomarker assay to stratify patients into risk groups associated with OS. An independent dataset served as a validation cohort.

Results

Regression and clustering analysis of MAGIC patients defined a seven-Gene Signature and two risk groups with different OS [hazard ratio (HR) 5.1; P < 0.0001]. The median OS of high- and low-risk groups were 10.2 [95% confidence interval (CI) of 6.5 and 13.2 months] and 80.9 months (CI: 43.0 months and not assessable), respectively. Risk groups were independently prognostic of lymph node metastasis by multivariate analysis (HR 3.6 in node positive group, P = 0.02; HR 3.6 in high-risk group, P = 0.0002), and not prognostic in surgery only patients (n = 118; log rank P = 0.2). A validation cohort independently confirmed these findings.

Conclusions

These results suggest that gene-based risk groups can independently predict prognosis in gastroesophageal cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. This signature and associated assay may help risk stratify these patients for post-surgery chemotherapy in future perioperative chemotherapy-based clinical trials.

Increased risk of second cancers at sites associated with HPV after a prior HPV-associated malignancy, a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

High-risk human papilloma viruses (HPV) are a causative agent of anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. Patients treated for a preinvasive or invasive HPV-associated cancer may be at increased risk of a second such malignancy.

Methods

We performed a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis to estimate the risk of HPV-associated cancer after prior diagnosis. Studies reporting second cancers at anogenital and oropharyngeal sites after prior diagnoses (preinvasive/invasive HPV-associated cancer) were identified. Studies reporting standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were included in formal meta-analyses of second cancer risk. (PROSPERO ID: CRD42016046974).

Results

Searches returned 5599 titles, including 60 unique, eligible studies. Thirty-two (98 comparisons) presented SIRs for second cervical, anal, vulvo-vaginal, penile, and/or oropharyngeal cancers, included in the meta-analyses. All studies (and 95/98 comparisons) reported increased cancers in the population with previous HPV-associated cancer when compared to controls. Pooled SIRs for second primary cancers ranged from 1.75 (95% CI 0.66−4.67) for cervical cancer after primary anal cancer, to 13.69 (95% CI 8.56−21.89) for anal cancer after primary vulvo-vaginal cancer.

Conclusions

We have quantified the increased risk of second HPV-associated cancer following diagnosis and treatment for initial cancer or preinvasive disease. This has important implications for follow-up, screening, and future therapeutic trials.

Prognostic value of pathological lymph node status and primary tumour regression grading following neoadjuvant chemotherapy - results from the MRC OE02 oesophageal cancer trial

AIMS

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) remains an important therapeutic option for advanced oesophageal cancer (OC). Pathological tumour regression grade (TRG) may offer additional information by directing adjuvant treatment and/or follow-up but its clinical value remains unclear. We analysed the prognostic value of TRG and associated pathological factors in OC patients enrolled in the Medical Research Council (MRC) OE02 trial.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Histopathology was reviewed in 497 resections from OE02 trial participants randomised to surgery (S group; n = 244) or NAC followed by surgery [chemotherapy plus surgery (CS) group; n = 253]. The association between TRG groups [responders (TRG1-3) versus non-responders (TRG4-5)], pathological lymph node (LN) status and overall survival (OS) was analysed. One hundred and ninety-five of 253 (77%) CS patients were classified as 'non-responders', with a significantly higher mortality risk compared to responders [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.05-2.24, P = 0.026]. OS was significantly better in patients without LN metastases irrespective of TRG [non-responders HR = 1.87, 95% CI = 1.33-2.63, P < 0.001 versus responders HR = 2.21, 95% CI = 1.11-4.10, P = 0.024]. In multivariate analyses, LN status was the only independent factor predictive of OS in CS patients (HR = 1.93, 95% CI = 1.42-2.62, P < 0.001). Exploratory subgroup analyses excluding radiotherapy-exposed patients (n = 48) showed similar prognostic outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Lymph node status post-NAC is the most important prognostic factor in patients with resectable oesophageal cancer, irrespective of TRG. Potential clinical implications, e.g. adjuvant treatment or intensified follow-up, reinforce the importance of LN dissection for staging and prognostication.

Epstein-Barr virus and mismatch repair deficiency status differ between oesophageal and gastric cancer: A large multi-centre study

BACKGROUND

Oesophageal (OeC) and gastric (GC) cancer patients are treated with similar multimodal therapy and have poor survival. There remains an urgent clinical need to identify biomarkers to individualise patient management and improve outcomes. Therapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors has shown promising results in other cancers. Proposed biomarkers to predict potential response to immune checkpoint inhibitors include DNA mismatch repair (MMR) and/or Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) status. The aim of this study was to establish and compare EBV status and MMR status in large multi-centre series of OeC and GC.

METHODS

EBV was assessed by EBV-encoded RNA (EBER) in situ hybridisation and MMR protein expression by immunohistochemistry (IHC) in 988 OeC and 1213 GC from multiple centres. In a subset of OeC, microsatellite instability (MSI) was tested in parallel with MMR IHC.

RESULTS

Frequency of MMR deficiency (MMRdef) and MSI was low in OeC (0.8% and 0.6%, respectively) compared with GC (10.3%). None of the OeCs were EBER positive in contrast to 4.8% EBER positive GC. EBV positive GC patients were younger (p = 0.01), more often male (p = 0.001) and had a better overall survival (p = 0.012). MMRdef GC patients were older (p = 0.001) and showed more often intestinal-type histology (p = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study to date indicating that EBV and MMRdef do not play a role in OeC carcinogenesis in contrast to GC. The potential clinical usefulness of determining MMRdef/EBV status to screen patients for eligibility for immune-targeting therapy differs between OeC and GC patients.

Single nucleotide polymorphisms of mir-608, LCS-6, and overall survival in the MAGIC trial

58

Background: Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in mir-608 (rs4919510) are prognostic in colorectal cancer (CRC) and hepatocellular cancer. SNPs of the let-7 complementary site 6 (LCS-6) 3'-untranslated region of KRAS (rs61764370) are associated with prognosis in CRC and platinum sensitivity in head and neck cancer. We investigated the prognostic effects of these SNPs in patients treated with surgery and with perioperative epirubicin, cisplatin and 5-fluorouracil chemotherapy plus surgery in the MRC MAGIC trial. Methods: DNA was extracted from tumour tissue using the QIAamp DNA FFPE Tissue Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Samples were genotyped using the Taqman assay (Life Technologies, Carlsbad, CA) for rs4919510 in mir-608 and rs61764370 in LCS-6. SNP status was assessed for association with patient characteristics and survival. Results: 305 patients (of 456 operated) had mir-608 and/or LCS-6 results available. SNPs mir-608 and LCS-6 were in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Pathological tumour regression grading was not different for any SNP genotype. No genotype was statistically significantly associated with overall survival in either surgery arm or chemotherapy plus surgery arm of the trial (Table). Conclusions: Germline polymorphisms in mir-608 and LCS-6 showed no evidence of a prognostic effect in patients with gastric and gastroesophageal cancer treated with surgery or chemotherapy plus surgery in the MAGIC trial. However, the small number of patients with selected genotypes means that these analyses may be underpowered to detect survival differences. [Table: see text]

Neoadjuvant cisplatin and fluorouracil versus epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine followed by resection in patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (UK MRC OE05): an open-label, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy before surgery improves survival compared with surgery alone for patients with oesophageal cancer. The OE05 trial assessed whether increasing the duration and intensity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy further improved survival compared with the current standard regimen.

METHODS

OE05 was an open-label, phase 3, randomised clinical trial. Patients with surgically resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma classified as stage cT1N1, cT2N1, cT3N0/N1, or cT4N0/N1 were recruited from 72 UK hospitals. Eligibility criteria included WHO performance status 0 or 1, adequate respiratory, cardiac, and liver function, white blood cell count at least 3 × 109 cells per L, platelet count at least 100 × 109 platelets per L, and a glomerular filtration rate at least 60 mL/min. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) using a computerised minimisation program with a random element and stratified by centre and tumour stage, to receive two cycles of cisplatin and fluorouracil (CF; two 3-weekly cycles of cisplatin [80 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1] and fluorouracil [1 g/m2 per day intravenously on days 1-4]) or four cycles of epirubicin, cisplatin, and capecitabine (ECX; four 3-weekly cycles of epirubicin [50 mg/m2] and cisplatin [60 mg/m2] intravenously on day 1, and capecitabine [1250 mg/m2] daily throughout the four cycles) before surgery, stratified according to centre and clinical disease stage. Neither patients nor study staff were masked to treatment allocation. Two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field (abdomen and thorax) lymphadenectomy was done within 4-6 weeks of completion of chemotherapy. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, and primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (number 01852072) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00041262), and is completed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 13, 2005, and Oct 31, 2011, 897 patients were recruited and 451 were assigned to the CF group and 446 to the ECX group. By Nov 14, 2016, 327 (73%) of 451 patients in the CF group and 302 (68%) of 446 in the ECX group had died. Median survival was 23·4 months (95% CI 20·6-26·3) with CF and 26·1 months (22·5-29·7) with ECX (hazard ratio 0·90 (95% CI 0·77-1·05, p=0·19). No unexpected chemotherapy toxicity was seen, and neutropenia was the most commonly reported event (grade 3 or 4 neutropenia: 74 [17%] of 446 patients in the CF group vs 101 [23%] of 441 people in the ECX group). The proportions of patients with postoperative complications (224 [56%] of 398 people for whom data were available in the CF group and 233 [62%] of 374 in the ECX group; p=0·089) were similar between the two groups. One patient in the ECX group died of suspected treatment-related neutropenic sepsis.

INTERPRETATION

Four cycles of neoadjuvant ECX compared with two cycles of CF did not increase survival, and cannot be considered standard of care. Our study involved a large number of centres and detailed protocol with comprehensive prospective assessment of health-related quality of life in a patient population confined to people with adenocarcinomas of the oesophagus and gastro-oesophageal junction (Siewert types 1 and 2). Alternative chemotherapy regimens and neoadjuvant chemoradiation are being investigated to improve outcomes for patients with oesophageal carcinoma.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London.

Testing many treatments within a single protocol over 10 years at MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL: Multi-arm, multi-stage platform, umbrella and basket protocols

There is real need to change how we do some of our clinical trials, as currently the testing and development process is too slow, too costly and too failure-prone often we find that a new treatment is no better than the current standard. Much of the focus on the development and testing pathway has been in improving the design of phase I and II trials. In this article, we present examples of new methods for improving the design of phase III trials (and the necessary lead up to them) as they are the most time-consuming and expensive part of the pathway. Key to all these methods is the aim to test many treatments and/or pose many therapeutic questions within one protocol.