Watch Me Play!: protocol for a feasibility study of a remotely delivered intervention to promote mental health resilience for children (ages 0–8) across UK early years and children’s services

Background: Half of mental health problems are established by the age of 14 years and 75% by 24 years. Early intervention and prevention of mental ill health are therefore vitally important. However, increased demand over recent years has meant that access to child mental health services is often restricted to those in severest need. Watch Me Play! (WMP) is an early intervention designed to support caregiver attunement and attention to the child to promote social-emotional well-being and thereby mental health resilience. Originally developed in the context of a local authority mental health service for children in care, it is now also delivered online as a low intensity, scalable, preventative intervention. Although WMP shows promise and is already used in some services, we do not yet know whether it is effective. Methods: A non-randomised single group feasibility study with embedded process evaluation. We propose to recruit up to 40 parents/carers of children aged 0–8 years who have been referred to early years and children’s services in the UK. WMP involves a parent watching the child play and talking to their child about their play (or for babies, observing and following signals) for up to 20 min per session. Some sessions are facilitated by a trained practitioner who provides prompts where necessary, gives feedback, and discusses the child’s play with the caregiver. Services will offer five facilitated sessions, and parents will be asked to do at least 10 additional sessions on their own with their child in a 5-week period. Feasibility outcomes examined are as follows: (i) recruitment, (ii) retention, (iii) adherence, (iv) fidelity of delivery, (v) barriers and facilitators of participation, (vi) intervention acceptability, (vii) description of usual care, and (viii) data collection procedures. Intervention mechanisms will be examined through qualitative interview data. Economic evaluation will be conducted estimating cost of the intervention and cost of service use for child and parents/carers quality-adjusted life years. Discussion: This study will address feasibility questions associated with progression to a future randomised trial of WMP. Trial registration: ISRCTN13644899. Registered on 14th April 2023

TOUCAN: A randomised phase II trial of carboplatin and gemcitabine +/- vandetanib in first line treatment of advanced urothelial cell cancer in patients who are not suitable to receive cisplatin.

Background: Whilst cisplatin combination therapy remains the standard of care for patients with advanced urothelial cancers, many patients are unsuitable for cisplatin and go on to receive carboplatin combination therapy. Although responses are frequent, overall outcomes remain poor, and there is a high unmet need for more effective first line treatment. Vandetanib is a well-tolerated, oral inhibitor of vascular and epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinases, both of which are implicated in the pathogenesis of urothelial cancers. Methods: Patients with metastatic or inoperable urothelial cancer who had no prior chemotherapy and were unsuitable for cisplatin were randomly allocated to receive carboplatin (AUC 4.5, day 1) plus gemcitabine (1000mg/m2, days 1 and 8) plus either vandetanib (100mg od, days 1-21) (GCV) or matching placebo (GCP) in 21-day cycles up to a total of 6 cycles. Treatment allocation was double-blind. There was a planned safety review after the first 40 patients had received at least one cycle. The primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS). Sample size (n=82) was calculated using a one-sided alpha of 0.2 and power 80% to detect a HR of 0.65 for PFS. We present the final efficacy results. The trial was coordinated by the Wales Cancer Trials Unit at Cardiff University and funded by Cancer Research UK (CRUK/09/024) and AstraZeneca. Results: Of 82 patients, 40 received GCV. 62 (76%) had a bladder primary, and 56 (68%) had poor renal function. The arms were well balanced except for age > 75 (13 (16%) GCV, 23 (28%) GCP). Median PFS was 8.5 months (m) (95% CI 6.0, 9.7) and 8.8 m (5.8, 9.0) for GCV and GCP respectively (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.93 (0.50, 1.71), P=0.89). Overall survival was 10.8 m (8.0, 13.0) and 13.8 m (11.1, 16.6) for GCV and GCP respectively (adjusted HR 1.38 (0.77, 2.46), P=0.24). Response rates were 50% (n=20) and 55% (n=23) for GCV and GCP. All-grade adverse events were similar but there were significantly more grade 3+ events in the GCV arm. Conclusion: Vandetanib did not improve efficacy of chemotherapy but increased toxicity in advanced urothelial cancer not suitable for cisplatin. Clinical trial information: 68146831

Once daily cediranib and weekly paclitaxel to prevent malignant bowel obstruction in at-risk patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer (CEBOC): a single-arm, phase II safety trial

Objective: Cytotoxic chemotherapy for ovarian cancer can be augmented by co-administration of vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors but these are contraindicated in patients with bowel obstruction due to the risk of gastrointestinal perforation. We evaluated the safety and feasibility of paclitaxel plus cediranib to treat patients with platinum-resistant ovarian cancer at risk of malignant bowel obstruction. Methods: A phase II trial included eligible patients between March 2018 and February 2021, identified by clinical symptoms and radiographic risk factors for malignant bowel obstruction. Cediranib (20 mg/day) was added to paclitaxel (70 mg/m2/week) within 9 weeks of starting paclitaxel if pretreatment bowel symptoms had improved. The primary endpoint was the number of patients treated for ≥5 days with cediranib that were free of grade 3–5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. Secondary endpoints were hospitalization for bowel obstruction, grade ≥3 adverse events, treatment compliance assessed by relative dose intensity, objective response, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Results: Thirty patients were recruited. Of these, 12 received paclitaxel alone and 17 received paclitaxel and cediranib in combination. One patient died before starting treatment. No patient developed a grade 3–5 gastrointestinal perforation or fistula (one sided 95% confidence interval (CI) upper limit 0.16). One patient required hospitalization for bowel obstruction but recovered with conservative management. The most common cediranib-related grade ≥3 adverse events were fatigue (3/17), diarrhorea (2/17), and hypomagnesemia (2/17). Relative dose intensity for paclitaxel was 90% (interquartile range (IQR) 85–100%; n=29) and for cediranib 88% (IQR 76–93%; n=17). The objective response in patients who received paclitaxel and cediranib was 65.0% (one complete and 10 partial responses). Median progression-free survival was 6.9 months (95% CI 4.4–11.5 months; n=17) and overall survival was 19.4 months (95% CI 10.1–20.4 months; n=17). Median follow-up was 12.4 months (8.9–not reached; n=17). Conclusions: The unexpectedly high withdrawal rate during paclitaxel alone, before introducing cediranib, meant we were unable to definitely conclude that paclitaxel plus cediranib did not cause gastrointestinal perforation or fistula. The regimen was however tolerated. Trial registration number: EudraCT 2016-004618-9