A randomised phase 2 study of intermittent versus continuous dosing of dabrafenib plus trametinib in patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma (INTERIM)

Background: BRAF+MEK inhibitors extend life expectancy of patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma. Acquired resistance limits duration of benefit, but preclinical and case studies suggest intermittent dosing could overcome this limitation. INTERIM was a phase 2 trial evaluating an intermittent dosing regimen. Methods: Patients with BRAFV600 mutant advanced melanoma due to start dabrafenib+trametinib were randomised to receive either continuous (CONT), or intermittent (INT; dabrafenib d1–21, trametinib d1–14 every 28 days) dosing. A composite primary endpoint included progression-free survival (PFS) and quality of life (QoL). Secondary endpoints included response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS) and adverse events (AEs). Mutant BRAFV600E ctDNA was measured by droplet digital PCR (ddPCR), using mutant allele frequency of > 1 % as the detection threshold. Results: 79 patients (39 INT, 40 CONT) were recruited; median age 67 years, 65 % AJCC (7th ed) stage IV M1c, 29 % had brain metastases. With 19 months median follow-up, INT was inferior in all efficacy measures: median PFS 8.5 vs 10.7mo (HR 1.39, 95 %CI 0.79–2.45, p = 0.255); median OS 18.1mo vs not reached (HR 1.69, 95 %CI 0.87–3.28, p = 0.121), ORR 57 % vs 77 %. INT patients experienced fewer treatment-related AEs (76 % vs 88 %), but more grade > 3 AEs (53 % vs 42 %). QoL favoured CONT. Detection of BRAFV600E ctDNA prior to treatment correlated with worse OS (HR 2.55, 95 %CI 1.25–5.21, p = 0.01) in both arms. A change to undetected during treatment did not significantly predict better OS. Conclusion: INTERIM findings are consistent with other recent clinical trials reporting that intermittent dosing does not improve efficacy of BRAF+MEK inhibitors

Drug discovery in advanced prostate cancer: translating biology into therapy.

Castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is associated with a poor prognosis and poses considerable therapeutic challenges. Recent genetic and technological advances have provided insights into prostate cancer biology and have enabled the identification of novel drug targets and potent molecularly targeted therapeutics for this disease. In this article, we review recent advances in prostate cancer target identification for drug discovery and discuss their promise and associated challenges. We review the evolving therapeutic landscape of CRPC and discuss issues associated with precision medicine as well as challenges encountered with immunotherapy for this disease. Finally, we envision the future management of CRPC, highlighting the use of circulating biomarkers and modern clinical trial designs

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]; pinteraction=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

The role of BRCA1 as a marker of clinical outcome following chemotherapy in sporadic ovarian cancer

EThOS - Electronic Theses Online ServiceGBUnited Kingdo

Thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the puerperium: a systematic review and economic evaluation to estimate the value of future research

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism is currently recommended for women assessed as being at high risk of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or in the six weeks after delivery (the puerperium). The decision to provide thromboprophylaxis involves weighing the benefits, harms and costs, which vary according to the individual's venous thromboembolism risk. It is unclear whether the United Kingdom’s current risk stratification approach could be improved by further research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the current decision uncertainty associated with selecting women who are pregnant or in the puerperium for thromboprophylaxis and to estimate the value of one or more potential future studies that would reduce that uncertainty, whilst being feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians. METHODS: A decision analytic model was developed which was informed by a systematic review of risk assessment models to predict venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. Expected value of perfect information analysis was used to determine which factors are associated with high decision uncertainty and should be the target of future research. To find out whether future studies would be acceptable and feasible, we held workshops with women who have experienced a blood clot or have been offered blood thinning drugs and surveyed healthcare professionals. Expected value of sample information analysis was used to estimate the value of potential future research studies. RESULTS: The systematic review included 17 studies, comprising 19 unique externally validated risk assessment models and 1 internally validated model. Estimates of sensitivity and specificity were highly variable ranging from 0 to 100% and 5 to 100% respectively. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias and applicability concerns. The decision analysis found that there is substantial decision uncertainty regarding the use of risk assessment models to select high-risk women for antepartum prophylaxis and obese postpartum women for postpartum prophylaxis. The main source of decision uncertainty was uncertainty around the effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis for preventing venous thromboembolism in women who are pregnant or in the puerperium. We found that a randomised controlled trial of thromboprophylaxis in obese postpartum women is likely to have substantial value and is more likely to be acceptable and feasible than a trial recruiting women who have had a previous venous thromboembolism. In unselected postpartum women and women following caesarean section, the poor performance of risk assessment models meant that offering prophylaxis based on these models had less favourable cost-effectiveness with lower decision uncertainty. LIMITATIONS: The performance of the risk assessment model for obese postpartum women has not been externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should focus on estimating the efficacy of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium, and clinical trials would be more acceptable in women who have not had a previous venous thromboembolism. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020221094 FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR131021) and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. XX, No. XX. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

BRCA1 Immunohistochemical Staining as a Prognostic Indicator in Uterine Serous Carcinoma

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between BRCA1 protein expression, as determined by immunohistochemistry, and clinical outcome in uterine serous carcinoma (USC). METHODS: A tissue microarray containing duplicate cores of 73 cases of USC was immunohistochemically stained with mouse anti-BRCA1 (Ab-1) mouse monoclonal (MS110) antibody. The cores were scored in a semiquantitative manner evaluating both the distribution and intensity of nuclear staining. BRCA1 protein expression was correlated with progression-free survival. RESULTS: Seventy-two of 73 cases were assessable, and there was a statistically significant decreased progression-free survival for those cases exhibiting tumor cell nuclei staining of 76% or greater (P = 0.0023). CONCLUSIONS: Our study illustrates that a low level of BRCA1 protein expression is a favorable prognostic indicator in USC, similar to what is observed in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma. Further studies should focus on the BRCA1 status of USCs at a molecular level and also investigate whether BRCA1 protein expression is associated with response to chemotherapy in USC