A randomised Phase II trial of carboplatin and gemcitabine ± vandetanib in first-line treatment of patients with advanced urothelial cell cancer not suitable to receive cisplatin

ObjectivesTo assess the efficacy and tolerability of the dual epidermal growth factor receptor/vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor, vandetanib, in combination with carboplatin and gemcitabine in the first‐line treatment of patients with advanced transitional cell carcinoma urothelial cancer (UC) who were unsuitable for cisplatin.Patients and methodsFrom 2011 to 2014, 82 patients were randomised from 16 hospitals across the UK into the TOUCAN double‐blind, placebo‐controlled randomised Phase II trial, receiving six 21‐day cycles of intravenous carboplatin (target area under the concentration versus time curve 4.5, day 1) and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2 days 1 and 8) combined with either oral vandetanib 100 mg or placebo (once daily). Progression‐free survival (PFS; primary endpoint), adverse events, tolerability and feasibility of use, objective response rate and overall survival (OS) were evaluated. Intention‐to‐treat and per‐protocol analyses were used to analyse the primary endpoint.ResultsThe 82 patients were randomised 1:1 to vandetanib (n = 40) or placebo (n = 42), and 25 patients (30%) completed six cycles of all allocated treatment. Toxicity Grade ≥3 was experienced in 80% (n = 32) and 76% (n = 32) of patients in the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively. The median PFS was 6.8 and 8.8 months for the vandetanib and placebo arms, respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.65–1.76; P = 0.71); the median OS was 10.8 vs 13.8 months (HR 1.41, 95% CI 0.79–2.52; P = 0.88); and radiological response rates were 50% and 55%.ConclusionThere is no evidence that vandetanib improves clinical outcome in this setting. Our present data do not support its adoption as the regimen of choice for first‐line treatment in patients with UC who were unfit for cisplatin

Recurrence of vulval intraepithelial neoplasia following treatment with cidofovir or imiquimod: results from a multi-centre, randomised, phase II trial (RT3VIN)

Objective To compare the recurrence rates after complete response to topical treatment with either cidofovir or imiquimod for vulval intraepithelial neoplasia (VIN) 3. Design A prospective, open, randomised multicentre trial. Setting 32 general hospitals located in Wales and England. Population or Sample 180 patients were randomised consecutively between 21 October 2009 and 11 January 2013, 89 to cidofoovir (of whom 41 completely responded to treatment) and 91 to imiquimod (of whom 42 completely responded to treatment). Methods After 24 weeks of treatment, complete responders were followed up at 6‐monthly intervals for 24 months. At each visit, the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v3.0 was assessed and any new lesions were biopsied for histology. Main outcome measures Time to histologically confirmed disease recurrence (any grade of VIN). Results The median length of follow up was 18.4 months. At 18 months, more participants were VIN‐free in the cidofovir arm: 94% (95% CI 78.2–98.5) versus 71.6% (95% CI 52.0–84.3) [univariable hazard ratio (HR) 3.46, 95% CI 0.95–12.60, P = 0.059; multivariable HR 3.53, 95% CI 0.96–12.98, P = 0.057). The number of grade 2+ events was similar between treatment arms (imiquimod: 24/42 (57%) versus cidofovir: 27/41 (66%), χ2 = 0.665, P = 0.415), with no grade 4+. Conclusions Long‐term data indicates a trend towards response being maintained for longer following treatment with cidofovir than with imiquimod, with similar low rates of adverse events for each drug. Adverse event rates indicated acceptable safety of both drugs Tweetable abstract Long‐term follow up in the RT3VIN trial suggests cidofovir may maintain response for longer than imiquimod

ToTem: A phase Ib trial of temisirolimus with gemcitabine and cisplatin.

Background: gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin (C) is a standard-of-care, combination chemotherapy regimen for neoadjuvant treatment of muscle-invasive and palliative treatment of advanced bladder cancer (BC). More effective regimens are urgently needed, with no significant improvements on GC in more than a decade. Mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) is a rational target for BC therapy, as abnormalities are commonly seen in mTOR’s upstream activators/downstream effectors in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR signaling pathway. We therefore performed a Phase Ib trial, combining escalating doses of the mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus (T) with GC. Methods: following regulatory and ethical approvals, eligible patients with advanced malignancy were treated with one or more doses of intravenous (IV) T plus fixed doses of IV GC in a 21-day (d) cycle. Previous unpublished data suggest a possible interaction between G and T. We therefore pursued a cautious escalation strategy (see table), as a precaution against excessive toxicity. Results: 14 patients (3 BC, 2 lung, 2 ovarian, 7 other cancers; 7 previous platinum exposure) were treated, at 4 dose schedules in 2 UK centers. There were no treatment-related deaths or SUSARs. Of 14 SAEs, 4 were SARs, in 10 individuals, 7 of whom had received IMP. Addition of 10mg T on d15, then d8&15 was tolerated, but DLTs were encountered when administering three 10mg doses of T, both on d1,8&15 (neutropenia; hypokalaemia) and d2,9&15 (febrile neutropenia; rash). T was omitted because of myelosuppression on d15, cycle 1 in 6/8 patients scheduled to receive 3 doses of T. Conclusions: it has not been feasible to add three, weekly doses of T to GC, even at low T doses, in the patient group tested, because of predominantly hematological toxicity. We plan to amend the schedule to include two doses of T, on d2&9, informed by data from pre-planned PK analyses of patients already treated. ToTem was developed by the UK NCRI Bladder Cancer Clinical Studies Group, sponsored by Cardiff University, funded by Cancer Research UK, and supported by supply of free drug and distribution costs from Pfizer. Clinical trial information: 31546330

Fulvestrant plus vandetanib versus placebo for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitor therapy (FURVA): a multicentre, Phase 2, randomised controlled trial

Background: FURVA, a randomised, double-blind Phase II trial, investigated whether the addition of vandetanib to fulvestrant improved progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with an aromatase inhibitor(AI)-resistant advanced breast cancer. Methods: Postmenopausal women with oestrogen receptor-positive (ER+ve)/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, who experienced disease progression on an AI, were randomised (1:1) to fulvestrant 500 mg (Q28) with vandetanib 300 mg od (f + v) or placebo (f + p) until disease progression or discontinuation. The primary endpoint was PFS; secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and the influence of REarranged during Transfection (RET) signalling on outcomes. Results: In total, 165 participants were randomised to f + v (n = 80) or f + p (n = 85). Median PFS was 5.5 months (m) for f + v compared to 5.5 m for f + p (hazard ratio (HR) 0.88; 95% CI: 0.62–1.23; P = 0.22). Unexpectedly, high total RET expression was associated with a PFS advantage of 8.87 m vs 3.94 with low RET (HR 0.493: 95% CI 0.32–0.77; P = 0.002) independent of the treatment arm, supported by an OS advantage 21.95 m vs 18.04 (HR 0.584; 95% CI 0.34–1.00; P = 0.051) in the high-RET group. Conclusion: The addition of vandetanib to fulvestrant does not improve PFS. However, high total RET expression was associated with improved PFS, suggesting RET may have a prognostic role in patients treated with fulvestrant. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02530411

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

Introduction: There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. // Methods and analysis: PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid). Eligibility criteria: community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18–49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial. // Ethics and dissemination: Ethical approval granted by South Central–Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals. // Trial registration number: ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31

Molnupiravir Plus Usual Care Versus Usual Care Alone as Early Treatment for Adults with COVID-19 at Increased Risk of Adverse Outcomes (PANORAMIC): Preliminary Analysis from the United Kingdom Randomised, Controlled Open-Label, Platform Adaptive Trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, in patients in the community who are multiply-vaccinated and at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19, has not been established. We aimed to determine whether molnupiravir added to usual care reduced hospital admissions/deaths among people at higher risk from COVID-19, and here report our preliminary analyses. Methods: Participants in this UK multicentre, open-label, adaptive, multi-arm, platform, randomised controlled trial were aged ≥50, or ≥18 years with comorbidities, and unwell ≤5 days with confirmed COVID-19 in the community, and were randomised to usual care or usual care plus molnupiravir (800mg twice daily for 5 days). The primary outcome measure was all-cause hospitalisation/death within 28 days, analysed using Bayesian models. The main secondary outcome measure was time to first self-reported recovery. A sub-set of participants in each group were assessed for the virology primary outcome measure of day seven SARS-CoV-2 viral load. Trial registration: ISRCTN30448031 Findings: Between December 8, 2021 and April 27, 2022, 25783 participants were randomised to molnupiravir plus usual care (n=12821) or usual care alone (n=12962). Mean (range) age of participants was 56·6 years (18 to 99), 58·6% were female, and 99% had at least one dose of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomisation was two days (IQR 1 – 3), the median number of days from symptom onset to starting to take the medication was three days (IQR 3 – 4), 87% (11109/11997) received their medication within five days of symptom onset, and 95·4% (n=11857) of participants randomised to molnupiravir reported taking molnupiravir for five days. Primary outcome measure data were available in 25000 (97%) participants and included in this analysis. 103/12516 (0·8%) hospitalisations/deaths occurred in the molnupiravir group versus 96/12484 (0·8%) in usual care alone with a posterior probability of superiority of 0·34 (adjusted odds ratio 1·061 (95% Bayesian credible interval [BCI]) 0·80 to 1·40). Estimates were similar for all subgroups. The observed median (IQR) time-to-first-recovery from randomisation was 9 (5–23) days in molnupiravir and 15 (7–not reached) days in usual care. There was an estimated benefit of 4·2 (95% BCI: 3·8 – 4·6) days in time-to-first-recovery (TTR) giving a posterior probability of superiority of >0·999 (estimated median TTR 10·3 [10·2 – 10·6] days vs 14·5 [14·2 – 14·9] days respectively; hazard ratio [95% BCI], 1·36 [1·3–1·4] days), which met the pre-specified superiority threshold. On day 7, SARS-CoV-2 virus was below detection levels in 7/34 (21%) of the molnupiravir group, versus 1/39 (3%) in the usual care group (p=0.039), and mean viral load was lower in the molnupiravir group compared with those receiving usual care [(SD) of log10(viral load) 3·82 (1·40) in the molnupiravir group and 4.93 (1·38) in the usual care group, (P<0·001)]. 59 (0·4%) participants experienced serious adverse events in the molnupiravir group and 52 (0·4%) in usual care. Interpretation: In this preliminary analysis, we found that molnupiravir did not reduce already low hospitalisations/deaths among higher risk, vaccinated adults with COVID-19 in the community, but resulted in faster time to recovery, and reduced viral detection and load. Funding: This project is funded by the NIHR (NIHR135366). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

Background: The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population. Methods: PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (&lt;50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031. Findings: Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir. Interpretation: Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.MethodsPANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older—or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities—and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.FindingsBetween Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81–1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.InterpretationMolnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community

Modulation of oestrogen action by receptor gene inhibition

Selective oestrogen receptor downregulators (SERDs) are a class of highly effective steroidal antitumour agents that reduce cellular levels of the oestrogen receptor (ER). In this study, we compared the efficacy by which three novel molecular approaches: (1) antisense oligonucleotides; (2) antisense RNA; and (3) dominant negative mutants are able to act as SERDs. Using transient and, where appropriate, stable gene transfection experiments we found that constitutive overexpression of ER antisense RNA and a hormone-binding domain compromised dominant-negative ER mutant (DNER-1), were most effective at downregulating ER expression and/or activity in vitro

Oestrogen receptor-mediated modulation of the EGFR/MAPK pathway in tamoxifen-resistant MCF-7 cells

Oestrogen receptor (ER) levels are usually maintained on acquisition of tamoxifen resistance in the clinic, however, tumour re-growth is associated with increased expression of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and activation of the mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) pathway. In the present study we have used the ER down-regulator fulvestrant (''Faslodex'') to investigate the influence of the ER on growth of a tamoxifen-resistant (TAM-R) human breast cancer cell line. Expression levels of ER mRNA and protein were equivalent in parental wild-type MCF-7 (WT) and TAM-R cells. Fulvestrant eliminated ER protein expression and inhibited proliferation in both cell lines. The growth inhibitory effects of fulvestrant were associated with a decrease in basal EGFR, c-erbB2 and ERK1/2 activity in TAM-R but not WT cells. ER functionality as determined by oestrogen response element (ERE)-luciferase reporter activity and expression of PgR, pS2 and transforming growth factor alpha (TGF) was significantly reduced in TAM-R compared to WT cells and was further decreased by fulvestrant treatment in both cell lines. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) and TGF significantly increased EGFR/MAPK pathway activity in both cell lines. Ligand-induced EGFR/MAPK activation promoted TAM-R cell growth in both the absence and presence of fulvestrant, whereas no proliferative activity was observed under the same conditions in WT cells. These results suggest that the ER modulates EGFR/MAPK signalling efficiency in TAM-R cells possibly through the regulation of TGF availability. This effect may be overcome by the action of exogenous EGFR ligands, which strengthen EGFR/MAPK signalling activity to generate endocrine-insensitive cell growth