234 research outputs found

    Xevinapant plus radiotherapy in resected, high-risk, cisplatin-ineligible LA SCCHN:the phase III XRay Vision study design

    Get PDF
    There is a significant unmet need and lack of treatment options for patients with resected, high-risk, cisplatin-ineligible locally advanced squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (LA SCCHN). Xevinapant, a first-in-class, potent, oral, small-molecule IAP inhibitor, is thought to restore cancer cell sensitivity to chemotherapy and radiotherapy in clinical and preclinical studies. We describe the design of XRay Vision (NCT05386550), an international, randomized, double-blind, phase III study. Approximately 700 patients with resected, high-risk, cisplatin-ineligible LA SCCHN will be randomized 1:1 to receive 6 cycles of xevinapant or placebo, in combination with radiotherapy for the first 3 cycles. The primary end point is disease-free survival, and secondary end points include overall survival, health-related quality of life, and safety.</p

    Implementing the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders in a phase I head and neck cancer trial

    Get PDF
    BackgroundIn this article we describe the methodology of the time-to-event continual reassessment method in the presence of partial orders (PO-TITE-CRM) and the process of implementing this trial design into a phase I trial in head and neck cancer called ADePT-DDR. The ADePT-DDR trial aims to find the maximum tolerated dose of an ATR inhibitor given in conjunction with radiotherapy in patients with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.MethodsThe PO-TITE-CRM is a phase I trial design that builds upon the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TITE-CRM) to allow for the presence of partial ordering of doses. Partial orders occur in the case where the monotonicity assumption does not hold and the ordering of doses in terms of toxicity is not fully known.ResultsWe arrived at a parameterisation of the design which performed well over a range of scenarios. Results from simulations were used iteratively to determine the best parameterisation of the design and we present the final set of simulations. We provide details on the methodology as well as insight into how it is applied to the trial.ConclusionsWhilst being a very efficient design we highlight some of the difficulties and challenges that come with implementing such a design. As the issue of partial ordering may become more frequent due to the increasing investigations of combination therapies we believe this account will be beneficial to those wishing to implement a design with partial orders.Trial registrationADePT-DDR was added to the European Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT number: 2020-001034-35) on 2020-08-07

    Results and lessons learnt from the WISTERIA phase I trial combining AZD1775 with cisplatin pre- or post-operatively in head and neck cancer

    Get PDF
    Background: Pre-clinical studies suggest AZD1775, a WEE1 kinase inhibitor, potentiates the activity of various chemotherapeutic agents. Methods: WISTERIA was a prospective, parallel two-group, open-label, dose-finding, phase I clinical trial. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed oral, laryngeal, or hypopharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, ECOG performance status 0/1, and aged ≥18-to-≤70 years. Primary outcomes were adverse events and defining recommended dose and schedule of AZD1775 in combination with cisplatin in pre-operative (Group A), or with cisplatin/radiotherapy in post-operative (Group B) patients. Dose determination was guided by a modified time-to-event continual reassessment method (mTITE-CRM). Results: Between 30-Oct-2017 and 15-Jul-2019, nine patients were registered: Three into Group A and six into Group B. WISTERIA was closed early due to poor recruitment. Five dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were reported in four Group B patients. Seven serious adverse events were reported in four patients: One in Group A, and three in Group B. Three were related to treatment. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Conclusions: WISTERIA did not complete its primary objectives due to poor recruitment and toxicities reported in Group B. However, use of the novel mTITE-CRM improved flexibility in reducing accrual suspension periods and should be considered for future trials in complex patient populations. Clinical Trial Registration: ISRCTN7629195

    Criteria for the diagnosis of extra nodal extension detected on radiological imaging in head and neck cancer: HNCIG international consensus recommendations

    No full text
    Extranodal extension of tumour on histopathology (pENE) is known to be a negative prognostic factor in head and neck cancer (HNC). Compelling evidence suggests that extranodal extension detected on radiological imaging (imaging-detected ENE; iENE) is also a negative prognostic factor. Furthermore, if iENE could be identified reliably before start of treatment, it could be used to guide treatment selection, as patients with iENE may be better managed with non-surgical approaches to avoid the toxicity and cost of trimodality therapy. There are many aspects of iENE that remain unresolved or which lack consensus – such as the criteria to best diagnose iENE and the associated terminology. The Head and Neck Cancer International Group conducted a five-round modified Delphi process with a group of 18 international radiology experts, representing 14 national clinical research groups. We generated consensus recommendations on the terminology and diagnostic criteria for iENE to harmonize clinical practice and research. These recommendations have been endorsed by 19 national organisations, representing 34 countries. We propose a new classification system to aid diagnosis, which was supported by the majority of participating experts over existing systems, and which will require validation in the future. Additionally, we have created an online educational resource for grading iENE.<br/

    Assessment of endpoint definitions in recurrent and metastatic mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma trials:HNCIG international consensus recommendations.

    No full text
    Transparent and precise endpoint definitions are a critical aspect of clinical trial conduct and reporting, and are used to communicate the benefit of an intervention. Previous studies have identified inconsistencies in endpoint definitions in oncological clinical trials. Here, the Head Neck Cancer International Group reports endpoint definitions from trial published between 2008-2021 in phase 3 trials or trials considered potentially practice-changing in the recurrent metastatic setting for patients with mucosal head and neck squamous cell carcinoma. We identify significant and global heterogeneity in endpoint definitions which potentially undermines the interpretation of results and development of future studies. We demonstrate how fundamental components of even seemingly incontrovertible endpoints such as overall survival varies widely, highlighting an urgent need for increased rigor in reporting and harmonisation of endpoint reporting

    Prognostic implications of p16 and HPV discordance in oropharyngeal cancer (HNCIG-EPIC-OPC): a multicentre, multinational, individual patient data analysis

    No full text
    Background: p16INK4a (p16) immunohistochemistry is the most widely used biomarker assay for inferring HPV causation in oropharyngeal cancer in clinical and trial settings. However, discordance exists between p16 and HPV DNA or RNA status in some patients with oropharyngeal cancer. We aimed to clearly quantify the extent of discordance, and its prognostic implications. Methods: In this multicentre, multinational individual patient data analysis, we did a literature search in PubMed and Cochrane database for systematic reviews and original studies published in English between Jan 1, 1970, and Sept 30, 2022. We included retrospective series and prospective cohorts of consecutively recruited patients previously analysed in individual studies with minimum cohort size of 100 patients with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oropharynx. Patient inclusion criteria were diagnosis with a primary squamous cell carcinoma of oropharyngeal cancer; data on p16 immunohistochemistry and on HPV testing; information on age, sex, tobacco, and alcohol use; staging by TNM 7th edition; information on treatments received; and data on clinical outcomes and follow-up (date of last follow-up if alive, date of recurrence or metastasis, and date and cause of death). There were no limits on age or performance status. The primary outcomes were the proportion of patients of the overall cohort who showed the different p16 and HPV result combinations, as well as 5-year overall survival and 5-year disease-free survival. Patients with recurrent or metastatic disease or who were treated palliatively were excluded from overall survival and disease-free survival analyses. Multivariable analysis models were used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) for different p16 and HPV testing methods for overall survival, adjusted for prespecified confounding factors. Findings: Our search returned 13 eligible studies that provided individual data for 13 cohorts of patients with oropharyngeal cancer from the UK, Canada, Denmark, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain. 7895 patients with oropharyngeal cancer were assessed for eligibility. 241 were excluded before analysis, and 7654 were eligible for p16 and HPV analysis. 5714 (74·7%) of 7654 patients were male and 1940 (25·3%) were female. Ethnicity data were not reported. 3805 patients were p16-positive, 415 (10·9%) of whom were HPV-negative. This proportion differed significantly by geographical region and was highest in the areas with lowest HPV-attributable fractions (r=–0·744, p=0·0035). The proportion of patients with p16+/HPV– oropharyngeal cancer was highest in subsites outside the tonsil and base of tongue (29·7% vs 9·0%, p<0·0001). 5-year overall survival was 81·1% (95% CI 79·5–82·7) for p16+/HPV+, 40·4% (38·6–42·4) for p16–/HPV–, 53·2% (46·6–60·8) for p16–/HPV+, and 54·7% (49·2–60·9) for p16+/HPV–. 5-year disease-free survival was 84·3% (95% CI 82·9–85·7) for p16+/HPV+, 60·8% (58·8–62·9) for p16–/HPV–; 71·1% (64·7–78·2) for p16–/HPV+, and 67·9% (62·5–73·7) for p16+/HPV–. Results were similar across all European sub-regions, but there were insufficient numbers of discordant patients from North America to draw conclusions in this cohort. Interpretation: Patients with discordant oropharyngeal cancer (p16–/HPV+ or p16+/HPV–) had a significantly worse prognosis than patients with p16+/HPV+ oropharyngeal cancer, and a significantly better prognosis than patients with p16–/HPV– oropharyngeal cancer. Along with routine p16 immunohistochemistry, HPV testing should be mandated for clinical trials for all patients (or at least following a positive p16 test), and is recommended where HPV status might influence patient care, especially in areas with low HPV-attributable fractions

    A systematic review of the effectiveness of patient‐initiated follow‐up after cancer

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background The traditional cancer follow‐up (FU) model for cancer survivors is by scheduled clinic appointments; however, this is not tailored to patient needs and is becoming unsustainable. Patient‐initiated follow‐up (PIFU) may be a more effective and flexible alternative. This systematic review aims to analyse all existing evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness of PIFU compared with other FU models that include routinely scheduled appointments in adults who have been treated with curative intent for any type of cancer. Methods Standard systematic review methodology aimed at limiting bias was used for study identification, selection and data extraction. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Epistemonikos were searched for systematic reviews to March 2022, and Cochrane CENTRAL was searched for RCTs from 2018 (April 2023). Ongoing trial registers were searched (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov, April 2023). Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials comparing PIFU with an alternative FU model in adult cancer survivors. Risk of bias assessment was via the Cochrane risk of bias tool‐2. Meta‐analysis was precluded by clinical heterogeneity and results were reported narratively. Results Ten RCTs were included (six breast, two colorectal, one endometrial cancer and one melanoma, total n = 1754); all studies had risk of bias concerns, particularly relating to how missing data were handled, and populations were unlikely to be representative. Limited findings in breast cancer suggested that type of FU does not affect recurrence detection or patient‐related outcomes, while PIFU may reduce the number of clinic visits. Adding patient‐led surveillance to routine FU may increase melanoma detection. Evidence for other types of cancer is too limited to draw firm conclusions. Conclusions PIFU may be a viable FU model in breast cancer, but further research is needed for other types of cancer and on long‐term outcomes. A protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020181424)
    corecore