Epirubicin dose and sequential hormonal therapy-Mature results of the HMFEC randomised phase III trial in premenopausal patients with node positive early breast cancer.

Background The hormonal manipulation 5-Fluoro-uracil Epirubicin Cyclophosphamide (HMFEC) trial was developed at a time of uncertainty around the dose intensity of chemotherapy given to premenopausal patients with node positive breast cancer and to the benefits of tailored endocrine therapy in such patients.Patients and methods HMFEC was a multi-centre, phase III, open label, randomised controlled trial with a 2 × 2 factorial design. Eligible patients were premenopausal with node positive early breast cancer; significant cardiac disease or uncontrolled hypertension was exclusion criterion. Patients were allocated to receive either eight cycles of FE50C or FE75C (given 3 weekly) with or without hormone manipulation (HM; tamoxifen or luteinising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists according to residual hormone levels at the end of chemotherapy) irrespective of ER status. The primary end-point was disease free survival (DFS). Principal analyses were by intention to treat (ITT); however, to reflect contemporary practice, subgroup analyses according to ER status were also conducted. The mature follow-up now available from this modest sized trial enables presentation of definitive results.Results Between 1992 and 2000 a total of 785 patients were randomised into the HMFEC trial (203 FE50C-HM, 191 FE50C+HM, 198 FE75C-HM, 193 FE75C+HM). At a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 245 DFS events have been reported (92 ER-, 153 ER+/unknown). The effects on DFS were not statistically significantly different according to epirubicin dose (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.06; p = 0.13 FE75C versus FE50C); however, FE75C appeared to induce more alopecia and neutropenia. No statistically significant evidence was observed to support an improvement in DFS in patients allocated HM either overall (HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.68-1.13; p = 0.32) or in patients with ER+/unknown disease (HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.62-1.17; p = 0.32) although effect sizes are consistent with worthwhile clinical effects. Overall, there was no evidence of a difference in survival between any of the four treatment groups of the trial.Conclusion Higher doses of epirubicin cause more adverse events in the absence of clear improvement in overall survival. Endocrine therapy with either tamoxifen or goserelin provided no significant added benefit to cytotoxic chemotherapy in this group of patients.Trial registration number ISRCTN98335268

Operational complexity versus design efficiency: challenges of implementing a phase IIa multiple parallel cohort targeted treatment platform trial in advanced breast cancer.

BackgroundPlatform trial designs are used increasingly in cancer clinical research and are considered an efficient model for evaluating multiple compounds within a single disease or disease subtype. However, these trial designs can be challenging to operationalise. The use of platform trials in oncology clinical research has increased considerably in recent years as advances in molecular biology enable molecularly defined stratification of patient populations and targeted therapy evaluation. Whereas multiple separate trials may be deemed infeasible, platform designs allow efficient, parallel evaluation of multiple targeted therapies in relatively small biologically defined patient sub-populations with the promise of increased molecular screening efficiency and reduced time for drug evaluation. Whilst the theoretical efficiencies are widely reported, the operational challenges associated with these designs (complexity, cost, regulatory, resource) are not always well understood. MAIN: In this commentary, we describe our practical experience of the implementation and delivery of the UK plasmaMATCH trial, a platform trial in advanced breast cancer, comprising an integrated screening component and multiple parallel downstream mutation-directed therapeutic cohorts. plasmaMATCH reported its primary results within 3 years of opening to recruitment. We reflect on the operational challenges encountered and share lessons learnt to inform the successful conduct of future trials. Key to the success of the plasmaMATCH trial was well co-ordinated stakeholder engagement by an experienced clinical trials unit with expert methodology and trial management expertise, a federated model of clinical leadership, a well-written protocol integrating screening and treatment components and including justification for the chosen structure and intentions for future adaptions, and an integrated funding model with streamlined contractual arrangements across multiple partners. Findings based on our practical experience include the importance of early engagement with the regulators and consideration of a flexible resource infrastructure to allow adequate resource allocation to support concurrent trial activities as adaptions are implemented in parallel to the continued management of patient safety and data quality of the ongoing trial cohorts.ConclusionPlatform trial designs allow the efficient reporting of multiple treatment cohorts. Operational challenges can be overcome through multidisciplinary engagement, streamlined contracting processes, rationalised protocol and database design and appropriate resourcing

Improving Cancer Outcomes Through International Collaboration in Academic Cancer Treatment Trials

The need for international collaboration in cancer clinical trials has grown stronger as we have made progress both in cancer treatment and screening. We sought to identify those efforts already underway which facilitate such collaboration, as well as barriers to greater collaboration