Sunbed use in children aged 11-17 in England: face to face quota sampling surveys in the National Prevalence Study and Six Cities Study

Objectives To quantify the use of sunbeds in young people across England, identify geographical variation, and explore patterns of use, including supervision

The Relationship between Common Genetic Markers of Breast Cancer Risk and Chemotherapy-Induced Toxicity: A Case-Control Study.

Ninety-four common genetic variants are confirmed to be associated with breast cancer. This study tested the hypothesis that breast cancer susceptibility variants may also be associated with chemotherapy-induced toxicity through shared mechanistic pathways such as DNA damage response, an association that, to our knowledge, has not been previously investigated. The study included breast cancer patients who received neoadjuvant/adjuvant chemotherapy from the Pharmacogenetic SNPs (PGSNPS) study. For each patient, a breast cancer polygenic risk score was created from the 94 breast cancer risk variants, all of which were genotyped or successfully imputed in PGSNPS. Logistic regression was performed to test the association with two clinically important toxicities: taxane- related neuropathy (n = 1279) and chemotherapy-induced neutropenia (n = 1676). This study was well powered (≥96%) to detect associations between polygenic risk score and chemotherapy toxicity. Patients with high breast cancer risk scores experienced less neutropenia compared to those with low risk scores (adjusted p-value = 0.06). Exploratory functional pathway analysis was performed and no functional pathways driving this trend were identified. Polygenic risk was not associated with taxane neuropathy (adjusted p-value = 0.48). These results suggest that breast cancer patients with high genetic risk of breast cancer, conferred by common variants, can safely receive standard chemotherapy without increased risk of taxane-related sensory neuropathy or chemotherapy-induced neutropenia and may experience less neutropenia. As neutropenia has previously been associated with improved survival and may reflect drug efficacy, these patients may be less likely to benefit from standard chemotherapy treatment.This work was supported by 1) PGSNPS: project and fellowship grants received by Jean Abraham from Cancer Research UK, C507/A6306 and C10097/A7484, http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/; 2) Neo-tAnGo funding: Cancer Research UK Research Grant (C57/A4180) and an additional unrestricted educational grant from Eli Lilly Limited who also provided free Gemzar®/gemcitabine; Bristol Myers Squibb Ltd provided free Taxol®/paclitaxel from January 2005 to June 2006 [EudraCT No: 2004-002356-34, ISRCTN 78234870, ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00070278]; 3) tAnGo funding: Unrestricted educational grants and free drug from Eli Lilly (GemzarTM) and Bristol Myers Squibb (TaxolTM); and 4) NEAT/BR9601 funding: Project grant from Cancer Research UK (formerly Cancer Research Campaign) 1996-2003: Unrestricted educational grant Pfizer (formerly Pharmacia). HME, JEA, and CC acknowledge funding from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre. JEA acknowledges funding from Addenbrookes Charitable Trust. LD acknowledges funding from Medical Research Council.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from the Public Library of Science via http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.015898

Two first-in-human studies of xentuzumab, a humanised insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-neutralising antibody, in patients with advanced solid tumours

BACKGROUND: Xentuzumab, an insulin-like growth factor (IGF)-1/IGF-2-neutralising antibody, binds IGF-1 and IGF-2, inhibiting their growth-promoting signalling. Two first-in-human trials assessed the maximum-tolerated/relevant biological dose (MTD/RBD), safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and activity of xentuzumab in advanced/metastatic solid cancers. METHODS: These phase 1, open-label trials comprised dose-finding (part I; 3 + 3 design) and expansion cohorts (part II; selected tumours; RBD [weekly dosing]). Primary endpoints were MTD/RBD. RESULTS: Study 1280.1 involved 61 patients (part I: xentuzumab 10–1800 mg weekly, n = 48; part II: 1000 mg weekly, n = 13); study 1280.2, 64 patients (part I: 10–3600 mg three-weekly, n = 33; part II: 1000 mg weekly, n = 31). One dose-limiting toxicity occurred; the MTD was not reached for either schedule. Adverse events were generally grade 1/2, mostly gastrointestinal. Xentuzumab showed dose-proportional pharmacokinetics. Total plasma IGF-1 increased dose dependently, plateauing at ~1000 mg/week; at ≥450 mg/week, IGF bioactivity was almost undetectable. Two partial responses occurred (poorly differentiated nasopharyngeal carcinoma and peripheral primitive neuroectodermal tumour). Integration of biomarker and response data by Bayesian Logistic Regression Modeling (BLRM) confirmed the RBD. CONCLUSIONS: Xentuzumab was well tolerated; MTD was not reached. RBD was 1000 mg weekly, confirmed by BLRM. Xentuzumab showed preliminary anti-tumour activity

ATTAIN: Phase III study of etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician's choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer and brain metastases

The increasing incidence of breast cancer brain metastases is a major clinical problem with its associated poor prognosis and limited treatment options. The long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, etirinotecan pegol, was designed to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. Motivated by improved survival findings from subgroup analyses from the Phase III BEACON trial, this ongoing randomized, Phase III trial compares etirinotecan pegol to drugs commonly used for advanced breast cancer in patients with stable, treated breast cancer brain metastases who have been previously treated with an anthracycline, taxane and capecitabine. The primary end point is overall survival. Secondary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and time to CNS disease progression or recurrence in patients with/without CNS lesions present at study entry. Trial registration number: NCT02915744

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

BACKGROUND: Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19. METHODS: The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 μg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 μg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (anti-spike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6-77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3-214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030-27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996-43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41-1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996-30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826-64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90-2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37-14·32) and 15·90 (12·92-19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24-16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90-9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group). INTERPRETATION: Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose. FUNDING: UK Vaccine Task Force and National Institute for Health Research

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the persistence of immunogenicity three months after third dose boosters. METHODS: COV-BOOST is a multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines used as a third booster dose. The analysis was conducted using all randomised participants who were SARS-CoV-2 naïve during the study. RESULTS: Among the 2883 participants randomised, there were 2422 SARS-CoV-2 naïve participants until D84 visit included in the analysis with median age of 70 (IQR: 30-94) years. In the participants who had two initial doses of ChAd, schedules using mRNA vaccines as third dose have the highest anti-spike IgG at D84 (e.g. geometric mean concentration of 8674 ELU/ml (95% CI: 7461-10085) following ChAd/ChAd/BNT). However, in people who had two initial doses of BNT there was no significant difference at D84 in people given ChAd versus BNT (geometric mean ratio (GMR) of 0.95 (95%CI: 0.78, 1.15). Also, people given Ad26.COV2.S (Janssen; hereafter referred to as Ad26) as a third dose had significantly higher anti-spike IgG at D84 than BNT (GMR of 1.20, 95%CI: 1.01,1.43). Responses at D84 between people who received BNT (15 μg) or BNT (30 μg) after ChAd/ChAd or BNT/BNT were similar, with anti-spike IgG GMRs of half-BNT (15 μg) versus BNT (30 μg) ranging between 0.74-0.86. The decay rate of cellular responses were similar between all the vaccine schedules and doses. CONCLUSIONS: 84 days after a third dose of COVID-19 vaccine the decay rates of humoral response were different between vaccines. Adenoviral vector vaccine anti-spike IgG concentration at D84 following BNT/BNT initial doses were higher than for a three dose (BNT/BNT/BNT) schedule. Half dose BNT immune responses were similar to full dose responses. While high antibody tires are desirable in situations of high transmission of new variants of concern, the maintenance of immune responses that confer long-lasting protection against severe disease or death is also of critical importance. Policymakers may also consider adenoviral vector, fractional dose of mRNA, or other non-mRNA vaccines as third doses

Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial (vol 84, pg 795, 2022)

The authors regret that there has been an error published within Fig. 5 of this article. The authors inadvertently pasted the anti-spike plots for the “≥70 years” group instead of the pseudo-neutralising antibody plots (pages 808–809) to Fig. 5A and B. These plots replicate the “≥70 years” group in Fig. 4A and B on pages 806–807. The authors have confirmed that the error does not affect the interpretation of the results and the rest of the paper, and the plots for the “<70 years” group in Fig. 5 are correct. The revised Fig. 5 contains the correct plots for pseudo-neutralising antibody data has now been updated in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Corrigendum to “Persistence of immunogenicity after seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCov-19 or BNT162b2 in the UK: Three month analyses of the COV-BOOST trial” [J Infect 84(6) (2022) 795–813, 5511]

The authors regret that there has been an error published within Fig. 5 of this article. The authors inadvertently pasted the anti-spike plots for the “≥70 years” group instead of the pseudo-neutralising antibody plots (pages 808–809) to Fig. 5A and B. These plots replicate the “≥70 years” group in Fig. 4A and B on pages 806–807. The authors have confirmed that the error does not affect the interpretation of the results and the rest of the paper, and the plots for the “<70 years” group in Fig. 5 are correct. The revised Fig. 5 contains the correct plots for pseudo-neutralising antibody data has now been updated in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial

Purpose: Conventional chemotherapy has limited activity in patients with breast cancer and brain metastases (BCBM). Etirinotecan pegol (EP), a novel long-acting topoisomerase-1 inhibitor, was designed using advanced polymer technology to preferentially accumulate in tumor tissue including brain metastases, providing sustained cytotoxic SN38 levels. Methods: The phase 3 BEACON trial enrolled 852 women with heavily pretreated locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer between 2011 and 2013. BEACON compared EP with treatment of physician’s choice (TPC; eribulin, vinorelbine, gemcitabine, nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, ixabepilone, or docetaxel) in patients previously treated with anthracycline, taxane, and capecitabine, including those with treated, stable brain metastases. The primary endpoint, overall survival (OS), was assessed in a pre-defined subgroup of BCBM patients; an exploratory post hoc analysis adjusting for the diagnosis-specific graded prognostic assessment (GPA) index was also conducted. Results: In the trial, 67 BCBM patients were randomized (EP, n = 36; TPC, n = 31). Treatment subgroups were balanced for baseline characteristics and GPA indices. EP was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of death (HR 0.51; P < 0.01) versus TPC; median OS was 10.0 and 4.8 months, respectively. Improvement in OS was observed in both poorer and better GPA prognostic groups. Survival rates at 12 months were 44.4% for EP versus 19.4% for TPC. Consistent with the overall BEACON population, fewer patients on EP experienced grade ≥3 toxicity (50 vs. 70%). Conclusions: The significant improvement in survival in BCBM patients provides encouraging data for EP in this difficult-to-treat subgroup of patients. A phase three trial of EP in BCBM patients is underway (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02915744)