Online test purchased new psychoactive substances in 5 different European countries; a snapshot study of chemical composition and price

Background: New psychoactive substances (NPS) are on offer worldwide online, in order to shed light on the purity and price of these substances in the European Union, a research collaboration was set up involving France, United Kingdom (UK), the Netherlands, Czech Republic and Poland. Methods: Per country, around 10 different NPS were test purchased from different webshops. Then, chemical analysis of NPS was done with according reference standards to identify and quantify the contents. Results: In contrast to what is generally advertised on the webshops (>99%), purity varied considerably per test purchased NPS. Several NPS were mislabelled, some containing chemical analogues (e.g. 25B/C-NBOMe instead of 25I-NBOMe, pentedrone instead of 3,4- DMMC). But in some cases NPS differed substantially from what was advertised (e.g. pentedrone instead of AMT or 3-FMC instead of 5-MeO-DALT). Per gram, purity-adjusted prices of cathinones differed substantially between three countries of test purchase, with Poland being the least expensive. Synthetic cannabinoids were relatively the most expensive in the Czech Republic and least expensive in the UK. Conclusions: The current findings provides a snapshot of the price and chemical contents of NPS products purchased by different countries and in different webshops. There is a potential danger of mislabelling of NPS. The great variety in price and purity of the delivered products might be the result of the market dynamics of supply and demand and the role of law enforcement in different European countries

4 Gy versus 24 Gy radiotherapy for follicular and marginal zone lymphoma (FoRT): long-term follow-up of a multicentre, randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: The optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma is uncertain. We aimed to compare 24 Gy in 12 fractions (representing the standard of care) with 4 Gy in two fractions (low-dose radiation). METHODS: FoRT (Follicular Radiotherapy Trial) is a randomised, multicentre, phase 3, non-inferiority trial at 43 study centres in the UK. We enrolled patients (aged >18 years) with indolent non-Hodgkin lymphoma who had histological confirmation of follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma requiring radical or palliative radiotherapy. No limit on performance status was stipulated, and previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy to another site was permitted. Radiotherapy target sites were randomly allocated (1:1) either 24 Gy in 12 fractions or 4 Gy in two fractions using minimisation and stratified by histology, treatment intent, and study centre. Randomisation was centralised through the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre. Patients, treating clinicians, and investigators were not masked to random assignments. The primary endpoint was time to local progression in the irradiated volume based on clinical and radiological evaluation and analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. The non-inferiority threshold aimed to exclude the chance that 4 Gy was more than 10% inferior to 24 Gy in terms of local control at 2 years (HR 1·37). Safety (in terms of adverse events) was analysed in patients who received any radiotherapy and who returned an adverse event form. FoRT is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00310167, and the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN65687530, and this report represents the long-term follow-up. FINDINGS: Between April 7, 2006, and June 8, 2011, 614 target sites in 548 patients were randomly assigned either 24 Gy in 12 fractions (n=299) or 4 Gy in two fractions (n=315). At a median follow-up of 73·8 months (IQR 61·9-88·0), 117 local progression events were recorded, 27 in the 24 Gy group and 90 in the 4 Gy group. The 2-year local progression-free rate was 94·1% (95% CI 90·6-96·4) after 24 Gy and 79·8% (74·8-83·9) after 4 Gy; corresponding rates at 5 years were 89·9% (85·5-93·1) after 24 Gy and 70·4% (64·7-75·4) after 4 Gy (hazard ratio 3·46, 95% CI 2·25-5·33; p<0·0001). The difference at 2 years remains outside the non-inferiority margin of 10% at -13·0% (95% CI -21·7 to -6·9). The most common events at week 12 were alopecia (19 [7%] of 287 sites with 24 Gy vs six [2%] of 301 sites with 4 Gy), dry mouth (11 [4%] vs five [2%]), fatigue (seven [2%] vs five [2%]), mucositis (seven [2%] vs three [1%]), and pain (seven [2%] vs two [1%]). No treatment-related deaths were reported. INTERPRETATION: Our findings at 5 years show that the optimal radiotherapy dose for indolent lymphoma is 24 Gy in 12 fractions when durable local control is the aim of treatment. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK

Detailed Sub-study Analysis of the SECRAB Trial: Quality of Life, Cosmesis and Chemotherapy Dose Intensity.

AIMS: SECRAB was a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised phase III trial comparing synchronous to sequential chemoradiotherapy (CRT). Conducted in 48 UK centres, it recruited 2297 patients (1150 synchronous and 1146 sequential) between 2 July 1998 and 25 March 2004. SECRAB reported a positive therapeutic benefit of using adjuvant synchronous CRT in the management of breast cancer; 10-year local recurrence rates reduced from 7.1% to 4.6% (P = 0.012). The greatest benefit was seen in patients treated with anthracycline-cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouracil (CMF) rather than CMF. The aim of its sub-studies reported here was to assess whether quality of life (QoL), cosmesis or chemotherapy dose intensity differed between the two CRT regimens. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The QoL sub-study used EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23 and the Women's Health Questionnaire. Cosmesis was assessed: (i) by the treating clinician, (ii) by a validated independent consensus scoring method and (iii) from the patients' perspective by analysing four cosmesis-related QoL questions within the QLQ-BR23. Chemotherapy doses were captured from pharmacy records. The sub-studies were not formally powered; rather, the aim was that at least 300 patients (150 in each arm) were recruited and differences in QoL, cosmesis and dose intensity of chemotherapy assessed. The analysis, therefore, is exploratory in nature. RESULTS: No differences were observed in the change from baseline in QoL between the two arms assessed up to 2 years post-surgery (Global Health Status: -0.05; 95% confidence interval -2.16, 2.06; P = 0.963). No differences in cosmesis were observed (via independent and patient assessment) up to 5 years post-surgery. The percentage of patients receiving the optimal course-delivered dose intensity (≥85%) was not significantly different between the arms (synchronous 88% versus sequential 90%; P = 0.503). CONCLUSIONS: Synchronous CRT is tolerable, deliverable and significantly more effective than sequential, with no serious disadvantages identified when assessing 2-year QoL or 5-year cosmetic differences