Rationale and design of the prevention of paclitaxel-related neurological side effects with lithium trial – Protocol of a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled proof-of-concept phase-2 clinical trial

INTRODUCTION: Chemotherapy-induced polyneuropathy (CIPN) and post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment (PCCI) are frequent side effects of paclitaxel treatment. CIPN/PCCI are potentially irreversible, reduce quality of life and often lead to treatment limitations, which affect patients’ outcome. We previously demonstrated that paclitaxel enhances an interaction of the Neuronal calcium sensor-1 protein (NCS-1) with the Inositol-1,4,5-trisphosphate receptor (InsP3R), which disrupts calcium homeostasis and triggers neuronal cell death via the calcium-dependent protease calpain in dorsal root ganglia neurons and neuronal precursor cells. Prophylactic treatment of rodents with lithium inhibits the NCS1-InsP3R interaction and ameliorates paclitaxel-induced polyneuropathy and cognitive impairment, which is in part supported by limited retrospective clinical data in patients treated with lithium carbonate at the time of chemotherapy. Currently no data are available from a prospective clinical trial to demonstrate its efficacy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PREPARE study will be conducted as a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase-2 trial with parallel group design. N = 84 patients with breast cancer will be randomized 1:1 to either lithium carbonate treatment (targeted serum concentration 0.5–0.8 mmol/l) or placebo with sham dose adjustments as add-on to (nab-) paclitaxel. The primary endpoint is the validated Total Neuropathy Score reduced (TNSr) at 2 weeks after the last (nab-) paclitaxel infusion. The aim is to show that the lithium carbonate group is superior to the placebo group, meaning that the mean TNSr after (nab-) paclitaxel is lower in the lithium carbonate group than in the placebo group. Secondary endpoints include: (1) severity of CIPN, (2) amount and dose of pain medication, (3) cumulative dose of (nab-) paclitaxel, (4) patient-reported symptoms of CIPN, quality of life and symptoms of anxiety and depression, (5) severity of cognitive impairment, (6) hippocampal volume and changes in structural/functional connectivity and (7) serum Neurofilament light chain protein concentrations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the Berlin ethics committee (reference: 21/232 – IV E 10) and the respective federal agency (Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte, reference: 61-3910-4044771). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals as well as presented at relevant (inter)national conferences. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: [https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00027165], identifier [DRKS00027165]

Anastrozole versus tamoxifen for the prevention of locoregional and contralateral breast cancer in postmenopausal women with locally excised ductal carcinoma in situ (IBIS-II DCIS): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial

Background Third-generation aromatase inhibitors are more effective than tamoxifen for preventing recurrence in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive invasive breast cancer. However, it is not known whether anastrozole is more effective than tamoxifen for women with hormone-receptor-positive ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Here, we compare the efficacy of anastrozole with that of tamoxifen in postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Methods In a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial, we recruited women who had been diagnosed with locally excised, hormone-receptor-positive DCIS. Eligible women were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio by central computer allocation to receive 1 mg oral anastrozole or 20 mg oral tamoxifen every day for 5 years. Randomisation was stratified by major centre or hub and was done in blocks (six, eight, or ten). All trial personnel, participants, and clinicians were masked to treatment allocation and only the trial statistician had access to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was all recurrence, including recurrent DCIS and new contralateral tumours. All analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis (in all women who were randomised and did not revoke consent for their data to be included) and proportional hazard models were used to compute hazard ratios and corresponding confidence intervals. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN37546358. Results Between March 3, 2003, and Feb 8, 2012, we enrolled 2980 postmenopausal women from 236 centres in 14 countries and randomly assigned them to receive anastrozole (1449 analysed) or tamoxifen (1489 analysed). Median follow-up was 7·2 years (IQR 5·6–8·9), and 144 breast cancer recurrences were recorded. We noted no statistically significant difference in overall recurrence (67 recurrences for anastrozole vs 77 for tamoxifen; HR 0·89 [95% CI 0·64–1·23]). The non-inferiority of anastrozole was established (upper 95% CI <1·25), but its superiority to tamoxifen was not (p=0·49). A total of 69 deaths were recorded (33 for anastrozole vs 36 for tamoxifen; HR 0·93 [95% CI 0·58–1·50], p=0·78), and no specific cause was more common in one group than the other. The number of women reporting any adverse event was similar between anastrozole (1323 women, 91%) and tamoxifen (1379 women, 93%); the side-effect profiles of the two drugs differed, with more fractures, musculoskeletal events, hypercholesterolaemia, and strokes with anastrozole and more muscle spasm, gynaecological cancers and symptoms, vasomotor symptoms, and deep vein thromboses with tamoxifen. Conclusions No clear efficacy differences were seen between the two treatments. Anastrozole offers another treatment option for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive DCIS, which may be be more appropriate for some women with contraindications for tamoxifen. Longer follow-up will be necessary to fully evaluate treatment differences