Evolution or Revolution? British Naval Policy in the Fisher Era

This article outlines recent trends in the scholarship on the Royal Navy in the years preceding the outbreak of the First World War. It explains the evolution of the historiography on the topic and outlines how and why new approaches are required to progress our understanding of the topic henceforth

Investigating the poor outcomes of BRAF - mutant advanced colorectal cancer: Analysis from 2530 patients in randomised clinical trials

Background: To improve strategies for the treatment of BRAF-mutant advanced colorectal cancer (aCRC) patients we examined individual data from patients treated with chemotherapy alone in three randomised trials to identify points on the treatment pathway where outcomes differ from BRAF wild-types. Patients and Methods: 2530 aCRC patients were assessed from three randomised trials. End-points were progression free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), disease control rate (DCR), post-progression survival (P-PS) and overall survival (OS). Treatments included first-line oxaliplatin/fluorouracil (OxFU), and second-line irinotecan. Clinicians were unaware of BRAF-status Results 231 patients (9.1%) had BRAF-mutant tumours. BRAF-mutation conferred significantly worse survival independent of associated clinicopathological factors known to be prognostic. Compared with wild-type, BRAF-mutant patients treated with first-line OxFU had similar DCR (59.2% vs 72%; adjusted OR=0.76,p=0.24) and PFS (5.7 vs 6.3 months; adjusted HR=1.14, p=0.26). Following progression on first-line chemotherapy, BRAF-mutant patients had a markedly shorter P-PS (4.2 vs 9.2 months, adjusted HR=1.69,p6 months; OS=24.0 months), however 36.5% progressed rapidly through first-line chemotherapy and thereafter, with OS=4.7 months. Conclusions BRAF-mutant aCRC confers a markedly worse prognosis independent of associated clinicopathological features. Chemotherapy provides meaningful improvements in outcome throughout treatment lines. Post-progression survival is markedly worse and vigilance is required to ensure appropriate delivery of treatment after first-line progression

Personalising Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Locally Advanced Colon Cancer: Protocols for the International Phase III FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 Randomised-Controlled Trials

Aim FOxTROT1 established a new standard of care for managing locally advanced colon cancer (CC) with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Six weeks of neoadjuvant oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine (OxFp) chemotherapy was associated with greater 2-year disease-free survival (DFS) when compared to proceeding straight to surgery (STS). There is now a need to refine the use of NAC and identify those most likely to benefit. FOxTROT2 will investigate NAC in older adults and those with frailty. FOxTROT3 will assess whether intensified triplet NAC provides additional benefits over OxFp. Methods FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 are international, open-label, phase III randomised-controlled trials. Eligible patients will be identified by the multidisciplinary team. Patient age, frailty and comorbidities will be considered to guide trial entry. Participants will be randomised 2:1 to the intervention or control arm: six weeks of dose-adapted neoadjuvant OxFp vs. STS in FOxTROT2 and six weeks of neoadjuvant modified oxaliplatin, 5FU and irinotecan (mFOLFOXIRI) vs. OxFp in FOxTROT3. The primary endpoint in FOxTROT2 is 3-year DFS. In FOxTROT3, tumour regression grade and 3-year DFS are co-primary endpoints. Discussion FOxTROT2 and FOxTROT3 will establish the FOxTROT platform, a key part of our long-term strategy to develop neoadjuvant treatments for CC. FOxTROT2 will investigate NAC in a population under-represented in FOxTROT1 and wider research. FOxTROT3 will assess whether it is possible to induce greater early tumour responses and whether this translates to superior long-term outcomes. Looking ahead, the FOxTROT platform will facilitate further trial comparisons and extensive translational research to optimise the use of NAC in CC

Stops making sense: translational trade-offs and stop codon reassignment

Background Efficient gene expression involves a trade-off between (i) premature termination of protein synthesis; and (ii) readthrough, where the ribosome fails to dissociate at the terminal stop. Sense codons that are similar in sequence to stop codons are more susceptible to nonsense mutation, and are also likely to be more susceptible to transcriptional or translational errors causing premature termination. We therefore expect this trade-off to be influenced by the number of stop codons in the genetic code. Although genetic codes are highly constrained, stop codon number appears to be their most volatile feature. Results In the human genome, codons readily mutable to stops are underrepresented in coding sequences. We construct a simple mathematical model based on the relative likelihoods of premature termination and readthrough. When readthrough occurs, the resultant protein has a tail of amino acid residues incorrectly added to the C-terminus. Our results depend strongly on the number of stop codons in the genetic code. When the code has more stop codons, premature termination is relatively more likely, particularly for longer genes. When the code has fewer stop codons, the length of the tail added by readthrough will, on average, be longer, and thus more deleterious. Comparative analysis of taxa with a range of stop codon numbers suggests that genomes whose code includes more stop codons have shorter coding sequences. Conclusions We suggest that the differing trade-offs presented by alternative genetic codes may result in differences in genome structure. More speculatively, multiple stop codons may mitigate readthrough, counteracting the disadvantage of a higher rate of nonsense mutation. This could help explain the puzzling overrepresentation of stop codons in the canonical genetic code and most variants

Is age a barrier to chemotherapy? Rates of treatment in older patients with breast, colon or lung cancer in England in 2014: A national registry study

Background Survival from cancer in older patients is poorer in the UK than other countries with similar health systems and wealth possibly due to undertreatment and increased toxicities in this specific population. This population-based observational study describes factors affecting systemic anticancer treatment (SACT) use in older patients in England. Methods We identified patients aged ≥70 with stage II-III breast cancer, stage III colon cancer and stage IIIB-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) diagnosed in 2014 from a dataset collected by the National Health Service in England. We used logistic regression to estimate factors affecting likelihood of receiving SACT and performed separate regression analyses for each disease, adjusting for age, gender, stage at diagnosis, pathological features, performance status, Charlson comorbidity index, ethnicity and socioeconomic group. We assessed 2-year overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method. Case mix adjusted treatment rates and workload volume were calculated at hospital level and presented using funnel plots, stratified by age groups (<70 and ≥70) to allow for assessment of variation between centres. Results 36892 patients were identified: 19879 with stage II-III breast cancer, 5292 with stage III colon cancer and 11721 with stage IIIB-IV NSCLC. Patients over 70 were less likely to receive SACT compared to those aged under 70: breast 11.7% vs 64.6%, p < 0.001; colon 37.4% vs 79%, p < 0.001; NSCLC 33.5% vs 60.2%, p < 0.001. 2-year OS for patients receiving SACT was similar for patients aged ≥70 and <70: breast 91.5% (95% CI: 89.3%-93.2%) vs 96.4% (95% CI: 95.9%-96.7%); colon 84.8% (95% CI: 82.6%-86.8%) vs 88.3% (95% CI: 86.7%-89.8%); NSCLC 16.7% (95% CI: 15.1%-18.4%) vs 19.8% (95%CI: 18.5%-21.1%). Patients receiving SACT had better OS than those untreated. SACT rates varied widely between hospitals after adjusting for case-mix across all ages. Conclusions Our study suggests that several factors affect the likelihood of receiving SACT but after adjusting for these, age remains determinant. Identifying hospitals with significantly lower SACT rates should prompt local review of multidisciplinary team practice

Molecular selection of therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer: the FOCUS4 molecularly stratified RCT

Complex trials with innovative designs are becoming increasingly common and offer the potential to improve patient outcomes in a shorter time frame. There is evidence that patients with colorectal cancer fall into different subgroups with varying responsiveness to therapy, and that this variation is linked to genetic biomarkers. To the best of our knowledge, FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Objectives To identify novel therapies that improve disease control within the molecular subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer in which the novel therapies were expected to be most effective. Design This was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial that used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which subtrial should close early; new subtrials were added as protocol amendments. Setting The maintenance setting following 16 weeks of first-line combination chemotherapy. Participants Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified subtrial or the non-stratified FOCUS4-N trial. Interventions Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted subtrials were activated: FOCUS4-B (PIK3CA mutation or PTEN overexpression) – aspirin versus placebo; FOCUS4-C (TP53 and RAS mutation) – adavosertib (AstraZeneca Ltd, Cambridge, UK) versus active monitoring; and FOCUS4-D (BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild type) – AZD8931 versus placebo. A non-stratified subtrial was also carried out: FOCUS4-N – capecitabine versus active monitoring. Main outcome measures The main outcome measure was progression-free survival from the time of randomisation to progression, comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. Toxicity and overall survival data were collected in all randomised patients, and quality of life (using EuroQol-5 Dimensions) data were collected in FOCUS4-N only. Results Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 hospitals in the UK. Successful biomarker testing was completed in 1291 out of 1382 samples (93%), and 908 out of 1315 patients (69%) completing 16 weeks of first-line therapy were eligible for randomisation, with 361 randomly allocated to a subtrial. FOCUS4-B evaluated aspirin versus placebo in the PIK3CA-mutant/ PTEN -loss subgroup, but recruited only six patients, so was closed for futility. FOCUS4-C evaluated adavosertib versus active monitoring in 67 patients in the RAS + TP53 double-mutant subgroup and met its primary end point, showing an improvement in progression-free survival (median 3.61 vs. 1.87 months; hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.68; p = 0022). FOCUS4-D evaluated AZD8931 in 32 patients in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild-type subgroup and showed no benefit, so was discontinued after the first interim analysis. FOCUS4-N evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus active monitoring in 254 patients and met its primary end point, showing improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75; p &lt; 0.0001). Limitations FOCUS4-C and FOCUS4-N were closed early owing to COVID-19, so did not accrue their planned recruitment numbers. Conclusions Adaptive stratified medicine studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Capecitabine monotherapy is an effective maintenance therapy. Wee1 inhibition using adavosertib shows significant clinical activity, notably in left-sided colorectal cancer. Trial registration This trial was registered as ISRCTN90061546. Funding This project was jointly funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) programme, a MRC and National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) partnership, and Cancer Research UK. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 9, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Effects of dual task on turning ability in stroke survivors and older adults

Background: Turning is an integral component of independent mobility in which stroke survivors frequently fall. Objective: This study sought to measure the effects of competing cognitive demands on the stepping patterns of stroke survivors, compared to healthy age-match adults, during turning as a putative mechanism for falls. Methods: Walking and turning (90º) was assessed under single (walking and turning alone) and dual task (subtracting serial 3s while walking and turning) conditions using an electronic, pressure-sensitive walkway. Dependent measures were time to turn, variability in time to turn, step length, step width and single support time during three steps of the turn. Turning ability in single and dual task conditions was compared between stroke survivors (n= 17, mean ± SD: 59 ± 113 months post-stroke, 64 ± 10 years of age) and age-matched healthy counterparts (n = 15). Results: Both groups took longer, were more variable, tended to widen the second step and, crucially, increased single support time on the inside leg of the turn while turning and distracted. Conclusions. Increased single support time during turning may represent biomechanical mechanism, within stepping patterns of turning under distraction, for increased risk of falls for both stroke survivors and older adults

Experiences of running a stratified medicine adaptive platform trial: Challenges and lessons learned from 10 years of the FOCUS4 trial in metastatic colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND: Complex innovative design trials are becoming increasingly common and offer potential for improving patient outcomes in a faster time frame. FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and it remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Here, we aim to describe lessons learned from delivery of the trial over the last 10 years. METHODS: FOCUS4 was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial testing the safety and efficacy of targeted therapies in metastatic colorectal cancer. It used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which sub-trial should close early, and new therapies were added as protocol amendments. Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified sub-trial (FOCUS4-B, C or D) or non-stratified FOCUS4-N. The primary outcome for all studies was progression-free survival comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. At the close of the trial, feedback was elicited from all investigators through surveys and interviews and consolidated into a series of recommendations and lessons learned for the delivery of similar future trials. RESULTS: Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 UK hospitals. Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted sub-trials were activated: FOCUS4-D (February 2014-March 2016) evaluated AZD8931 in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wildtype subgroup; FOCUS4-B (February 2016-July 2018) evaluated aspirin in the PIK3CA mutant subgroup and FOCUS4-C (June 2017-October 2020) evaluated adavosertib in the RAS+TP53 double mutant subgroup. FOCUS4-N was active throughout and evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus a treatment break. A total of 361 (25%) registered patients were randomised into a sub-trial. Feedback on the experiences of delivery of FOCUS4 could be grouped into three main areas of challenge: funding/infrastructure, biomarker testing procedures and trial design efficiencies within which 20 recommendations are summarised. CONCLUSION: Adaptive stratified medicine platform studies are feasible in common cancers but present challenges. Our stakeholder feedback has helped to inform how these trial designs can succeed and answer multiple questions efficiently, providing resource is adequate