Obinutuzumab as consolidation after chemo-immunotherapy: Results of the UK National Cancer Research Institute phase II/III GALACTIC trial

The GA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) (GALACTIC) was a seamless phase II/III trial designed to test whether consolidation with obinutuzumab is safe and eradicates minimal residual disease (MRD) and, subsequently, whether this leads to prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) in patients with CLL who have recently responded to chemo-immunotherapy. Patients with a response 3–24 months after chemotherapy were assessed for MRD. MRD-positive patients were randomised to receive consolidation therapy with obinutuzumab or no consolidation. The trial closed after the phase II part due to slow recruitment. In all, 48 patients enrolled of whom 19 were MRD negative and were monitored. Of the 29 MRD-positive patients, 14 were randomised to receive consolidation and 15 to no consolidation. At 6 months after randomisation, 10 and 13 consolidated patients achieved MRD negativity by flow cytometry (sensitivity 10−4) in bone marrow and peripheral blood respectively. PFS was significantly better in consolidated patients compared to non-consolidated patients (p = 0.001). No difference was observed in PFS, overall survival or duration of MRD negativity when comparing the 10 MRD-negative patients after consolidation with the 19 MRD-negative patients in the monitoring group. Common adverse events in the consolidation arm were thrombocytopenia, infection, and cough. Only 1% of events were infusion-related reactions. This observation provides further evidence that consolidation to achieve MRD negativity improves outcomes in CLL and that obinutuzumab is well tolerated in patients with low levels of disease

Implementation of the Time-to-Event Continuous Reassessment Method Design in a Phase I Platform Trial Testing Novel Radiotherapy-Drug Combinations-CONCORDE

\ua9 2022 by American Society of Clinical Oncology. PURPOSE CONCORDE is the first phase I drug-radiotherapy (RT) combination platform in non-small-cell lung cancer, designed to assess multiple different DNA damage response inhibitors in combination with radical thoracic RT. Time-to-event continuous reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) methodology will inform dose escalation individually for each different DNA damage response inhibitor-RT combination and a randomized calibration arm will aid attribution of toxicities. We report in detail the novel statistical design and implementation of the TiTE-CRM in the CONCORDE trial. METHODS Statistical parameters were calibrated following recommendations by Lee and Cheung. Simulations were performed to assess the operating characteristics of the chosen models and were written using modified code from the R package dfcrm. RESULTS The results of the simulation work showed that the proposed statistical model setup can answer the research questions under a wide range of potential scenarios. The proposed models work well under varying levels of recruitment and with multiple adaptations to the original methodology. CONCLUSION The results demonstrate how TiTE-CRM methodology may be used in practice in a complex dose-finding platform study. We propose that this novel phase I design has potential to overcome some of the logistical barriers that for many years have prevented timely development of novel drug-RT combinations

NET-02: a randomised, non-comparative, phase II trial of nal-IRI/5-FU or docetaxel as second-line therapy in patients with progressive poorly differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma

Background The prognosis for patients with poorly-differentiated extra-pulmonary neuroendocrine carcinoma (PD-EP-NEC) is poor. A recognised first-line (1L) treatment for advanced disease is etoposide/platinum-based chemotherapy with no standard second-line (2L) treatment. Methods Patients with histologically-confirmed PD-EP-NEC (Ki-67 > 20%; Grade 3) received IV liposomal irinotecan (nal-IRI) (70 mg/m2 free base)/5-FU (2400 mg/m2)/folinic acid, Q14 days (ARM A), or IV docetaxel (75 mg/m2), Q21 days (ARM B), as 2L therapy. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) rate (80% power to demonstrate one-sided 95% lower confidence interval excluded 15% (target level of efficacy: 30%)). Secondary endpoints: objective response rate (ORR), median PFS, overall survival (OS), toxicity and patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03837977). Findings Of 58 patients (29 each arm); 57% male, 90% ECOG PS 0/1, 10% PS 2, 89.7% Ki-67 ≥ 55%, primary site: 70.7%-gastrointestinal, 18.9%-other, 10.3%-unknown, 91.4%/6.9%/1.7% were resistant/sensitive/intolerant to 1L platinum-based treatment, respectively. The primary end-point of 6-month PFS rate was met by ARM A: 29.6% (lower 95% Confidence-Limit (CL) 15.7), but not by ARM B: 13.8% (lower 95%CL:4.9). ORR, median PFS and OS were 11.1% (95%CI:2.4–29.2) and 10.3% (95%CI:2.2–27.4%); 3 months (95%CI:2–6) and 2 months (95%CI:2-2); and 6 months (95%CI:3–10) and 6 months (95%CI:3–9) in ARMS A and B, respectively. Adverse events ≥ grade 3 occurred in 51.7% and 55.2% (1 and 6 discontinuations due to toxicity in ARMS A and B), respectively. QoL was maintained in ARM A, but not ARM B. Interpretation nal-IRI/5-FU/folinic acid, but not docetaxel, met the primary endpoint, with manageable toxicity and maintained QoL, with no difference in OS. ORR and median PFS were similar in both arms. This study provides prospective efficacy, toxicity and QoL data in the 2L setting in a disease group of unmet need, and represents some of the strongest evidence available to recommend systemic treatment to these patients

Bezlotoxumab for Prevention of Recurrent Clostridium difficile Infection

BACKGROUND Clostridium difficile is the most common cause of infectious diarrhea in hospitalized patients. Recurrences are common after antibiotic therapy. Actoxumab and bezlotoxumab are human monoclonal antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B, respectively. METHODS We conducted two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trials, MODIFY I and MODIFY II, involving 2655 adults receiving oral standard-of-care antibiotics for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection. Participants received an infusion of bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram of body weight), actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab (10 mg per kilogram each), or placebo; actoxumab alone (10 mg per kilogram) was given in MODIFY I but discontinued after a planned interim analysis. The primary end point was recurrent infection (new episode after initial clinical cure) within 12 weeks after infusion in the modified intention-to-treat population. RESULTS In both trials, the rate of recurrent C. difficile infection was significantly lower with bezlotoxumab alone than with placebo (MODIFY I: 17% [67 of 386] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −10.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −15.9 to −4.3; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 16% [62 of 395] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −9.9 percentage points; 95% CI, −15.5 to −4.3; P<0.001) and was significantly lower with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab than with placebo (MODIFY I: 16% [61 of 383] vs. 28% [109 of 395]; adjusted difference, −11.6 percentage points; 95% CI, −17.4 to −5.9; P<0.001; MODIFY II: 15% [58 of 390] vs. 26% [97 of 378]; adjusted difference, −10.7 percentage points; 95% CI, −16.4 to −5.1; P<0.001). In prespecified subgroup analyses (combined data set), rates of recurrent infection were lower in both groups that received bezlotoxumab than in the placebo group in subpopulations at high risk for recurrent infection or for an adverse outcome. The rates of initial clinical cure were 80% with bezlotoxumab alone, 73% with actoxumab plus bezlotoxumab, and 80% with placebo; the rates of sustained cure (initial clinical cure without recurrent infection in 12 weeks) were 64%, 58%, and 54%, respectively. The rates of adverse events were similar among these groups; the most common events were diarrhea and nausea. CONCLUSIONS Among participants receiving antibiotic treatment for primary or recurrent C. difficile infection, bezlotoxumab was associated with a substantially lower rate of recurrent infection than placebo and had a safety profile similar to that of placebo. The addition of actoxumab did not improve efficacy. (Funded by Merck; MODIFY I and MODIFY II ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT01241552 and NCT01513239.

Leveraging knowledge as a competitive asset? The intensity, performance and structure of universities’ entrepreneurial knowledge exchange activities at a regional level

© 2016, The Author(s). Universities are no longer considered to be isolated islands of knowledge, but as institutions increasingly engaged with a range of external partners through entrepreneurial activities. This paper examines the associations between the intensity and performance of knowledge exchange activities undertaken in UK universities with non-academic actors. Drawing on data concerning the structural factors of interactions of universities in the UK with external partners, the paper sheds further light on the nature of these activities through a prism of competitive and uncompetitive regions in order to better understand how universities may be able to leverage both their knowledge and partnerships more effectively as competitive assets. On the one hand, it is found that academics in uncompetitive regions are more intensively engaged in entrepreneurial activities but generate less income from them than their counterparts in competitive regions, suggesting that there are differences in the income-generating capacity of academics across regions. On the other hand, academic knowledge is found to be more strongly bounded within a certain distance in uncompetitive regions whilst geographical distance seems less of a hindrance to academics in competitive regions

When the LANTERN goes out: feasibility studies in a changing clinical environment

Assessing feasibility is crucial before deciding whether to justify the resources required for a phase III trial. The environment can change during the lifetime of a trial making a promising study rapidly unfeasible. The LANTERN phase II screening trial had a modest recruitment target of 130 patients, albeit in a relatively rare subgroup of breast cancer, which was expected to be achievable in the UK. The intervention drug (lapatinib) was not approved for use within the NHS and so it was expected that LANTERN would be the main route for patients to potentially access this treatment. However, shortly following trial set-up, the Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) was launched in response to the concern that patients were not able to access newly available systemic therapies. Recruitment for LANTERN was consistently behind initial estimates and after two years the trial closed due to poor recruitment, with only 30/130 (23%) randomised participants recruited across sixteen centres. During this time the CDF approved at least 886 applications for lapatinib across England and as lapatinib has a relatively narrow indication it is thought that a substantial proportion of these patients would have been eligible for LANTERN. Study non-registration logs suggested just 3/75 patients considered were not entered due to accessing lapatinib via the CDF, however, anecdotal investigator feedback suggested this was a far more limiting factor. Furthermore, the most successful recruitment was observed in Scotland, where the CDF was not available. We believe that the introduction of CDF had a significant negative effect on recruitment to LANTERN and will pose additional challenges in the conduct of research into rarer cancers in the UK. ‘Future-proofing’ clinical trials is challenging and our experience suggests that trialists need to remain acutely aware of the wider environment during the feasibility assessment stage of a study

Clinical trial recruiters’ experiences working with trial eligibility criteria: results of an exploratory, cross-sectional, online survey in the UK

Background Eligibility criteria are a fundamental element of clinical trial design, defining who can and who should not participate in a trial. Problems with the design or application of criteria are known to occur and pose risks to participants’ safety and trial integrity, sometimes also negatively impacting on trial recruitment and generalisability. We conducted a short, exploratory survey to gather evidence on UK recruiters’ experiences interpreting and applying eligibility criteria and their views on how criteria are communicated and developed. Methods Our survey included topics informed by a wider programme of work at the Clinical Trials Research Unit, University of Leeds, on assuring eligibility criteria quality. Respondents were asked to answer based on all their trial experience, not only on experiences with our trials. The survey was disseminated to recruiters collaborating on trials run at our trials unit, and via other mailing lists and social media. The quantitative responses were descriptively analysed, with inductive analysis of free-text responses to identify themes. Results A total of 823 eligible respondents participated. In total, 79% of respondents reported finding problems with eligibility criteria in some trials, and 9% in most trials. The main themes in the types of problems experienced were criteria clarity (67% of comments), feasibility (34%), and suitability (14%). In total, 27% of those reporting some level of problem said these problems had led to patients being incorrectly included in trials; 40% said they had led to incorrect exclusions. Most respondents (56%) reported accessing eligibility criteria mainly in the trial protocol. Most respondents (74%) supported the idea of recruiter review of eligibility criteria earlier in the protocol development process. Conclusions Our survey corroborates other evidence about the existence of suboptimal trial eligibility criteria. Problems with clarity were the most often reported, but the number of comments on feasibility and suitability suggest some recruiters feel eligibility criteria and associated assessments can hinder recruitment to trials. Our proposal for more recruiter involvement in protocol development has strong support and some potential benefits, but questions remain about how best to implement this. We invite other trialists to consider our other suggestions for how to assure quality in trial eligibility criteria