Randomized phase II study investigating pazopanib versus weekly paclitaxel in relapsed or progressive urothelial cancer

Purpose: Two previous single-arm trials have drawn conflicting conclusions regarding the activity of pazopanib in urothelial cancers after failure of platinum-based chemotherapy. Patients and Methods: This randomized (1:1) open-label phase II trial compared the efficacy of pazopanib 800 mg orally with paclitaxel (80 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15 every 28 days) in the second-line setting. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Results: Between August 2012 and October 2014, 131 patients, out of 140 planned, were randomly assigned. The study was terminated early on the recommendation of the independent data monitoring committee because of futility. Final analysis after the preplanned number of deaths (n = 110) occurred after a median follow-up of 18 months. One hundred fifteen deaths had occurred at the final data extract presented here. Median OS was 8.0 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 6.9 to 9.7 months) and 4.7 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 4.2 to 6.4 months). The hazard ratio (HR) adjusted for baseline stratification factors was 1.28 (80% CI, 0.99 to 1.67; one-sided P = .89). Median progression-free survival was 4.1 months for paclitaxel (80% CI, 3.0 to 5.6 months) and 3.1 months for pazopanib (80% CI, 2.7 to 4.6 months; HR, 1.09; 80% CI, 0.85 to 1.40; one-sided P = .67). Discontinuations for toxicity occurred in 7.8% and 23.1% for paclitaxel and pazopanib, respectively. Conclusion: Pazopanib did not have greater efficacy than paclitaxel in the second-line treatment of urothelial cancers. There was a trend toward superior OS for paclitaxel

A randomised Phase II trial of carboplatin and gemcitabine ± vandetanib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer not suitable to receive cisplatin

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, vandetanib, in combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine in the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma urothelial cancer (UC) who were unsuitable for cisplatin.Patients and methodsFrom 2011 to 2014, 82 patients were randomised from 16 hospitals across the UK into the TOUCAN double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomised Phase II trial, receiving six 21‐day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (target area under the concentration versus time curve 4.5, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) combined with either oral vandetanib 100 mg or placebo (once daily). Progression‐free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), adverse events, tolerability and feasibility of use, objective response rate and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analyses were used to analyse the primary endpoint.ResultsThe 82 patients were randomised 1:1 to vandetanib (n = 40) or placebo (n = 42), and 25 patients (30%) completed six cycles of all allocated treatment. Toxicity Grade ≥3 was experienced in 80% (n = 32) and 76% (n = 32) of patients in the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively. The median PFS was 6.8 and 8.8 months for the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–1.76; P = 0.71); the median OS was 10.8 vs 13.8 months (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.79–2.52; P = 0.88); and radiological response rates were 50% and 55%.ConclusionThere is no evidence that vandetanib improves clinical outcome in this setting. Our present data do not support its adoption as the regimen of choice for first‐line treatment in patients with UC who were unfit for cisplatin

ToTem: A phase Ib trial of temisirolimus with gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Background: gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) is a standard-of-care, combination chemotherapy regimen for neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive and palliative treatment of advanced bladder cancer (BC). More effective regimens are urgently needed, with no significant improvements on GC in more than a decade. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a rational target for BC therapy, as abnormalities are commonly seen in mTOR’s upstream activators/downstream effectors in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. We therefore performed a Phase Ib trial, combining escalating doses of the mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus (T) with GC. Methods: following regulatory and ethical approvals, eligible patients with advanced malignancy were treated with one or more doses of intravenous (IV) T plus fixed doses of IV GC in a 21-day (d) cycle. Previous unpublished data suggest a possible interaction between G and T. We therefore pursued a cautious escalation strategy (see table), as a precaution against excessive toxicity. Results: 14 patients (3 BC, 2 lung, 2 ovarian, 7 other cancers; 7 previous platinum exposure) were treated, at 4 dose schedules in 2 UK centers. There were no treatment-related deaths or SUSARs. Of 14 SAEs, 4 were SARs, in 10 individuals, 7 of whom had received IMP. Addition of 10mg T on d15, then d8&15 was tolerated, but DLTs were encountered when administering three 10mg doses of T, both on d1,8&15 (neutropenia; hypokalaemia) and d2,9&15 (febrile neutropenia; rash). T was omitted because of myelosuppression on d15, cycle 1 in 6/8 patients scheduled to receive 3 doses of T. Conclusions: it has not been feasible to add three, weekly doses of T to GC, even at low T doses, in the patient group tested, because of predominantly hematological toxicity. We plan to amend the schedule to include two doses of T, on d2&9, informed by data from pre-planned PK analyses of patients already treated. ToTem was developed by the UK NCRI Bladder Cancer Clinical Studies Group, sponsored by Cardiff University, funded by Cancer Research UK, and supported by supply of free drug and distribution costs from Pfizer. Clinical trial information: 31546330

An observational study showed that explaining randomization using gambling-related metaphors and computer-agency descriptions impeded randomized clinical trial recruitment.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. RESULTS: One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was "best for them". Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. CONCLUSIONS: The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation

Real-World Outcomes in First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer : The Prostate Cancer Registry

Altres ajuts: This study was funded by Janssen EMEA. Janssen EMEA contributed to the study design, the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data, the writing of the report, and the decision to submit the paper for publication.Metastatic prostate cancer has a 30% 5-year survival rate despite recent therapeutic advances. There is a need to improve the clinical understanding and treatment of this disease, particularly in the real-world setting and among patients who are under-represented in clinical trials. We aimed to evaluate the characteristics and clinical outcomes of patients who received their first treatment for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) in routine clinical practice, independent of treatment used, including subgroups with baseline cardiac disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases. Prospective, noninterventional analysis of patient record data in the multicenter Prostate Cancer Registry (PCR) of men with mCRPC. The data were collected in 16 countries with the aim of recruiting more than 3000 patients between 2013 and 2016. The study end date was 9 July 2018. Data evaluated included baseline characteristics, treatment exposure, and efficacy outcomes [overall survival (OS) and time to progression (TTP)] of patients treated with abiraterone acetate plus prednisone or prednisolone (collectively, "abiraterone"), enzalutamide, or docetaxel. Descriptive outcomes are reported from the overall patient population and subgroups of patients with baseline cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or visceral metastases. The treatment effects for time to progression were compared for the overall patient population. The study enrollment period lasted 2.5 years, and each patient was followed for a maximum of 3 years. A total of 1874 patients in the PCR had not received previous mCRPC treatment at baseline, although they had received androgen-deprivation therapy. Prevalent co-morbidities included cardiovascular disease in 65.4% and diabetes mellitus in 17.4% of patients. Baseline characteristics suggested that patients with more advanced disease received docetaxel treatment. In the overall patient population, the median time to progression with abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel as first-line mCRPC therapy was 9.6, 10.3, and 7.6 months, respectively, and median OS was 27.1, 27.1, and 27.9 months, respectively. Outcomes in the subgroups of patients with cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus were similar to those of the whole population in the analysis. As expected, patients with visceral metastases had shorter TTP and OS than patients in the overall population. This analysis shows, for the first time, the effectiveness in parallel of first-line abiraterone, enzalutamide, and docetaxel in mCRPC, including in patients with co-morbidities such as cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus or in patients with visceral metastases. These real-world findings from the PCR provide meaningful information to help manage mCRPC, particularly in patients under-represented in clinical studies. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02236637; registered September 2014. The online version of this article (10.1007/s11523-020-00720-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users

Systemic anticancer therapy for urothelial carcinoma: UK oncologists’ perspective

Urothelial carcinoma (UC) is a common cancer associated with a poor prognosis in patients with advanced disease. Platinum-based chemotherapy has remained the cornerstone of systemic anticancer treatment for many years, and recent developments in the treatment landscape have improved outcomes. In this review, we provide an overview of systemic treatment for UC, including clinical data supporting the current standard of care at each point in the treatment pathway and author interpretations from a UK perspective. Neoadjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy is recommended for eligible patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer and is preferable to adjuvant treatment. For first-line treatment of advanced UC, platinum-eligible patients should receive cisplatin- or carboplatin-based chemotherapy, followed by avelumab maintenance in those without disease progression. Among patients unable to receive platinum-based chemotherapy, immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment is an option for those with programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1)–positive tumours. Second-line or later treatment options depend on prior treatment, and enfortumab vedotin is preferred after prior ICI and chemotherapy, although availability varies between countries. Additional options include rechallenge with platinum-based chemotherapy, an ICI, or non–platinum-based chemotherapy. Areas of uncertainty include the optimal number of first-line chemotherapy cycles for advanced UC and the value of PD-L1 testing for UC

Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs):the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

BackgroundResearch has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. MethodsEight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. ResultsThe eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR andndash; Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. ConclusionsThe SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.</p

Key issues in recruitment to randomised controlled trials with very different interventions: a qualitative investigation of recruitment to the SPARE trial (CRUK/07/011)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with very different treatment arms is often difficult. The ProtecT (Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment) study successfully used qualitative research methods to improve recruitment and these methods were replicated in five other RCTs facing recruitment difficulties. A similar qualitative recruitment investigation was undertaken in the SPARE (Selective bladder Preservation Against Radical Excision) feasibility study to explore reasons for low recruitment and attempt to improve recruitment rates by implementing changes suggested by qualitative findings.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In Phase I of the investigation, reasons for low levels of recruitment were explored through content analysis of RCT documents, thematic analysis of interviews with trial staff and recruiters, and conversation analysis of audio-recordings of recruitment appointments. Findings were presented to the trial management group and a plan of action was agreed. In Phase II, changes to design and conduct were implemented, with training and feedback provided for recruitment staff.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Five key challenges to trial recruitment were identified in Phase I: (a) Investigators and recruiters had considerable difficulty articulating the trial design in simple terms; (b) The recruitment pathway was complicated, involving staff across different specialties/centres and communication often broke down; (c) Recruiters inadvertently used 'loaded' terminology such as 'gold standard' in study information, leading to unbalanced presentation; (d) Fewer eligible patients were identified than had been anticipated; (e) Strong treatment preferences were expressed by potential participants and trial staff in some centres. In Phase II, study information (patient information sheet and flowchart) was simplified, the recruitment pathway was focused around lead recruiters, and training sessions and 'tips' were provided for recruiters. Issues of patient eligibility were insurmountable, however, and the independent Trial Steering Committee advised closure of the SPARE trial in February 2010.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The qualitative investigation identified the key aspects of trial design and conduct that were hindering recruitment, and a plan of action that was acceptable to trial investigators and recruiters was implemented. Qualitative investigations can thus be used to elucidate challenges to recruitment in trials with very different treatment arms, but require sufficient time to be undertaken successfully.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>CRUK/07/011; <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN61126465">ISRCTN61126465</a></p