Assessment of ibrutinib plus rituximab in front-line CLL (FLAIR trial): study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled trial

Background Treatment of chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) has seen a substantial improvement over the last few years. Combination immunochemotherapy, such as fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and rituximab (FCR), is now standard first-line therapy. However, the majority of patients relapse and require further therapy, and so new, effective, targeted therapies that improve remission rates, reduce relapses, and have fewer side effects, are required. The FLAIR trial will assess whether ibrutinib plus rituximab (IR) is superior to FCR in terms of progression-free survival (PFS). Methods/design FLAIR is a phase III, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial in patients with previously untreated CLL. A total of 754 participants will be randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive standard therapy with FCR or IR. Participants randomised to FCR will receive a maximum of six 28-day treatment cycles. Participants randomised to IR will receive six 28-day cycles of rituximab, and ibrutinib taken daily for 6 years until minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity has been recorded for the same amount of time as it took to become MRD negative, or until disease progression. The primary endpoint is PFS according to the International Workshop on CLL (IWCLL) criteria. Secondary endpoints include: overall survival; proportion of participants with undetectable MRD; response to therapy by IWCLL criteria; safety and toxicity; health-related quality of life (QoL); and cost-effectiveness. Discussion The trial aims to provide evidence for the future first-line treatment of CLL patients by assessing whether IR is superior to FCR in terms of PFS, and whether toxicity rates are favourable. Trial registration ISRCTN01844152. Registered on 8 August 2014, EudraCT number 2013-001944-76. Registered on 26 April 2013

GA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In CLL (GALACTIC) trial: study protocol for a phase II/III randomised controlled trial

Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the most common adult leukaemia. Achieving minimal residual disease (MRD) negativity in CLL is an independent predictor of survival even with a variety of different treatment approaches and regardless of the line of therapy. Methods/design: GA101 (obinutuzumab) monocLonal Antibody as Consolidation Therapy In CLL (GALACTIC) is a seamless phase II/III, multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open, parallel-group trial for patients with CLL who have recently responded to chemotherapy. Participants will be randomised to receive either obinutuzumab (GA-101) consolidation or no treatment (as is standard). The phase II trial will assess safety and short-term efficacy in order to advise on continuation to a phase III trial. The primary objective for phase III is to assess the effect of consolidation therapy on progression-free survival (PFS). One hundred eighty-eight participants are planned to be recruited from forty research centres in the United Kingdom. Discussion: There is evidence that achieving MRD eradication with alemtuzumab consolidation is associated with improvements in survival and time to progression. This trial will assess whether obinutuzumab is safe in a consolidation setting and effective at eradicating MRD and improving PFS. Trial registration: ISRCTN, 64035629. Registered on 12 January 2015. EudraCT, 2014-000880-42. Registered on 12 November 2014

The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/ metastatic Renal Can

Abstract Background: Over recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks

Electronic self-reporting of adverse events for patients undergoing cancer treatment: the eRAPID research programme including two RCTs

Abstract Background Cancer is treated using multiple modalities (e.g. surgery, radiotherapy and systemic therapies) and is frequently associated with adverse events that affect treatment delivery and quality of life. Regular adverse event reporting could improve care and safety through timely detection and management. Information technology provides a feasible monitoring model, but applied research is needed. This research programme developed and evaluated an electronic system, called eRAPID, for cancer patients to remotely self-report adverse events. Objectives The objectives were to address the following research questions: is it feasible to collect adverse event data from patients’ homes and in clinics during cancer treatment? Can eRAPID be implemented in different hospitals and treatment settings? Will oncology health-care professionals review eRAPID reports for decision-making? When added to usual care, will the eRAPID intervention (i.e. self-reporting with tailored advice) lead to clinical benefits (e.g. better adverse event control, improved patient safety and experiences)? Will eRAPID be cost-effective? Design Five mixed-methods work packages were conducted, incorporating co-design with patients and health-care professionals: work package 1 – development and implementation of the electronic platform across hospital centres; work package 2 – development of patient-reported adverse event items and advice (systematic and scoping reviews, patient interviews, Delphi exercise); work package 3 – mapping health-care professionals and care pathways; work package 4 – feasibility pilot studies to assess patient and clinician acceptability; and work package 5 – a single-centre randomised controlled trial of systemic treatment with a full health economic assessment. Setting The setting was three UK cancer centres (in Leeds, Manchester and Bristol). Participants The intervention was developed and evaluated with patients and clinicians. The systemic randomised controlled trial included 508 participants who were starting treatment for breast, colorectal or gynaecological cancer and 55 health-care professionals. The radiotherapy feasibility pilot recruited 167 patients undergoing treatment for pelvic cancers. The surgical feasibility pilot included 40 gastrointestinal cancer patients. Intervention eRAPID is an online system that allows patients to complete adverse event/symptom reports from home or hospital. The system provides immediate severity-graded advice based on clinical algorithms to guide self-management or hospital contact. Adverse event data are transferred to electronic patient records for review by clinical teams. Patients complete an online symptom report every week and whenever they experience symptoms. Main outcome measures In systemic treatment, the primary outcome was Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General, Physical Well-Being score assessed at 6, 12 and 18 weeks (primary end point). Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness assessed through the comparison of health-care costs and quality-adjusted life-years. Patient self-efficacy was measured (using the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases 6-item Scale). The radiotherapy pilot studied feasibility (recruitment and attrition rates) and selection of outcome measures. The surgical pilot examined symptom report completeness, system actions, barriers to using eRAPID and technical performance. Results eRAPID was successfully developed and introduced across the treatments and centres. The systemic randomised controlled trial found no statistically significant effect of eRAPID on the primary end point at 18 weeks. There was a significant effect at 6 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.08, 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 2.05; p = 0.028) and 12 weeks (adjusted difference least square means 1.01, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 1.98; p = 0.0395). No between-arm differences were found for admissions or calls/visits to acute oncology or chemotherapy delivery. Health economic analyses over 18 weeks indicated no statistically significant difference between the cost of the eRAPID information technology system and the cost of usual care (£12.28, 95% confidence interval –£1240.91 to £1167.69; p > 0.05). Mean differences were small, with eRAPID having a 55% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. Patient self-efficacy was greater in the intervention arm (0.48, 95% confidence interval 0.13 to 0.83; p = 0.0073). Qualitative interviews indicated that many participants found eRAPID useful for support and guidance. Patient adherence to adverse-event symptom reporting was good (median compliance 72.2%). In the radiotherapy pilot, high levels of consent (73.2%) and low attrition rates (10%) were observed. Patient quality-of-life outcomes indicated a potential intervention benefit in chemoradiotherapy arms. In the surgical pilot, 40 out of 91 approached patients (44%) consented. Symptom report completion rates were high. Across the studies, clinician intervention engagement was varied. Both patient and staff feedback on the value of eRAPID was positive. Limitations The randomised controlled trial methodology led to small numbers of patients simultaneously using the intervention, thus reducing overall clinician exposure to and engagement with eRAPID. Furthermore, staff saw patients across both arms, introducing a contamination bias and potentially reducing the intervention effect. The health economic results were limited by numbers of missing data (e.g. for use of resources and EuroQol-5 Dimensions). Conclusions This research provides evidence that online symptom monitoring with inbuilt patient advice is acceptable to patients and clinical teams. Evidence of patient benefit was found, particularly during the early phases of treatment and in relation to self-efficacy. The findings will help improve the intervention and guide future trial designs. Future work Definitive trials in radiotherapy and surgical settings are suggested. Future research during systemic treatments could study self-report online interventions to replace elements of traditional follow-up care in the curative setting. Further research during modern targeted treatments (e.g. immunotherapy and small-molecule oral therapy) and in metastatic disease is recommended. Trial registration The systemic randomised controlled trial is registered as ISRCTN88520246. The radiotherapy trial is registered as ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02747264. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 10, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Phase 2 Neoadjuvant Treatment Intensification Trials in Rectal Cancer: A Systematic Review

Purpose: Multiple phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer have reported promising efficacy signals, but these have not translated into improved cancer outcomes in phase 3 trials. Improvements in phase 2 trial design are needed to reduce these false-positive signals. This systematic review evaluated the design of phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification in locally advanced rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: The PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for published phase 2 trials of neoadjuvant treatment intensification from 2004 to 2016. Trial clinical design and outcomes were assessed, with statistical design and compliance rated using a previously published system. Multivariable meta-regression analysis of pathologic complete response (pCR) was conducted. Results: We identified 92 eligible trials. Patients with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage II and III equivalent disease were eligible in 87 trials (94.6%). In 43 trials (46.7%), local staging on magnetic resonance imaging was mandated. Only 12 trials (13.0%) were randomized, with 8 having a standard-treatment control arm. Just 51 trials (55.4%) described their statistical design, with 21 trials (22.8%) failing to report their sample size derivation. Most trials (n=84, 91.3%) defined a primary endpoint, but 15 different primary endpoints were used. All trials reported pCR rates. Only 38 trials (41.3%) adequately reported trial statistical design and compliance. Meta-analysis revealed a pooled pCR rate of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, 15.7%-19.4%) across treatment arms of neoadjuvant long-course radiation or chemoradiation therapy treatment intensification and substantial heterogeneity among the reported effect sizes (I2 = 55.3%, P<.001). Multivariable meta-regression analysis suggested increased pCR rates with higher radiation therapy doses (adjusted P=.025). Conclusions: Improvement in the design of future phase 2 rectal cancer trials is urgently required. A significant increase in randomized trials is essential to overcome selection bias and determine novel schedules suitable for phase 3 testing. This systematic review provides key recommendations to guide future treatment intensification trial design in rectal cancer

The STAR trial protocol: a randomised multi-stage phase II/III study of Sunitinib comparing temporary cessation with allowing continuation, at the time of maximal radiological response, in the first-line treatment of locally advanced/metastatic Renal Cancer.

Over recent years a number of novel therapies have shown promise in advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Internationally the standard of care of first-line therapy is sunitinib™, after a clear survival benefit was demonstrated over interferon-α. Convention dictates that sunitinib is continued until evidence of disease progression, assuming tolerability, although there is no evidence that this approach is superior to intermittent periods of treatment. The purpose of the STAR trial is to compare the standard treatment strategy (conventional continuation strategy, CCS) with a novel drug free interval strategy (DFIS) which includes planned treatment breaks

Structure and dynamics of oligomeric intermediates in β2-microglobulin self-assembly.

β(2)-Microglobulin is a 99-residue protein with a propensity to form amyloid-like fibrils in vitro which exhibit distinct morphologies dependent on the solution conditions employed. Here we have used ion mobility spectrometry-mass spectrometry to characterize the oligomeric species detected during the formation of worm-like fibrils of β(2)-microglobulin at pH 3.6. Immediately upon sample dissolution, β(2)-microglobulin monomer and oligomers-the latter ranging in size from dimer to hexamer-are present as a pool of rapidly interconverting species. Increasing the ionic strength of the solution initiates fibril formation without a lag-phase whereupon these oligomers become more stable and higher-order species (7-mer to >14-mer) are observed. The oligomers detected have collision cross-sectional areas consistent with a linearly stacked assembly comprising subunits of native-like volume. The results provide insights into the identity and properties of the transient, oligomeric intermediates formed during assembly of worm-like fibrils and identify species that differ significantly from the oligomers previously characterized during the nucleated assembly of long, straight fibrils. The data presented demonstrate the interrelationship between different fibril-forming pathways and identify their points of divergence