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

Costs and staffing resource requirements for adaptive clinical trials: quantitative and qualitative results from the Costing Adaptive Trials project.

BACKGROUND: Adaptive designs offer great promise in improving the efficiency and patient-benefit of clinical trials. An important barrier to further increased use is a lack of understanding about which additional resources are required to conduct a high-quality adaptive clinical trial, compared to a traditional fixed design. The Costing Adaptive Trials (CAT) project investigated which additional resources may be required to support adaptive trials. METHODS: We conducted a mock costing exercise amongst seven Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) in the UK. Five scenarios were developed, derived from funded clinical trials, where a non-adaptive version and an adaptive version were described. Each scenario represented a different type of adaptive design. CTU staff were asked to provide the costs and staff time they estimated would be needed to support the trial, categorised into specified areas (e.g. statistics, data management, trial management). This was calculated separately for the non-adaptive and adaptive version of the trial, allowing paired comparisons. Interviews with 10 CTU staff who had completed the costing exercise were conducted by qualitative researchers to explore reasons for similarities and differences. RESULTS: Estimated resources associated with conducting an adaptive trial were always (moderately) higher than for the non-adaptive equivalent. The median increase was between 2 and 4% for all scenarios, except for sample size re-estimation which was 26.5% (as the adaptive design could lead to a lengthened study period). The highest increase was for statistical staff, with lower increases for data management and trial management staff. The percentage increase in resources varied across different CTUs. The interviews identified possible explanations for differences, including (1) experience in adaptive trials, (2) the complexity of the non-adaptive and adaptive design, and (3) the extent of non-trial specific core infrastructure funding the CTU had. CONCLUSIONS: This work sheds light on additional resources required to adequately support a high-quality adaptive trial. The percentage increase in costs for supporting an adaptive trial was generally modest and should not be a barrier to adaptive designs being cost-effective to use in practice. Informed by the results of this research, guidance for investigators and funders will be developed on appropriately resourcing adaptive trials

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 role of ixazomib as an augmented conditioning therapy in salvage autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) and as a post-ASCT consolidation and maintenance strategy in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma (ACCoRd [UK-MRA Myeloma XII] trial): study protocol for a Phase III randomised controlled trial

Background: Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma cell tumour with an approximate annual incidence of 4500 in the UK. Therapeutic options for patients with MM have changed in the last decade with the arrival of proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs. Despite these options, almost all patients will relapse post first-line autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT). First relapse management (second-line treatment) has evolved in recent years with an expanding portfolio of novel agents, driving response rates influencing the durability of response. A second ASCT, as part of relapsed disease management (salvage ASCT), has been shown to prolong the progression-free survival and overall survival following a proteasome inhibitor-containing re-induction regimen, in the Cancer Research UK-funded National Cancer Research Institute Myeloma X (Intensive) study. It is now recommended that salvage ASCT be considered for suitable patients by the International Myeloma Working Group and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence NG35 guidance. Methods/design: ACCoRd (Myeloma XII) is a UK-nationwide, individually randomised, multi-centre, multiple randomisation, open-label phase III trial with an initial single intervention registration phase aimed at relapsing MM patients who have received ASCT in first-line treatment. We will register 406 participants into the trial to allow 284 and 248 participants to be randomised at the first and second randomisations, respectively. All participants will receive re-induction therapy until maximal response (four to six cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone). Participants who achieve at least stable disease will be randomised (1:1) to receive either ASCTCon, using high-dose melphalan, or ASCTAug, using high-dose melphalan with ixazomib. All participants achieving or maintaining a minimal response or better, following salvage ASCT, will undergo a second randomisation (1:1) to consolidation and maintenance or observation. Participants randomised to consolidation and maintenance will receive consolidation with two cycles of ixazomib, thalidomide and dexamethasone, and maintenance with ixazomib until disease progression. Discussion: The question of how best to maximise the durability of response to salvage ASCT warrants clinical investigation. Given the expanding scope of oral therapeutic agents, patient engagement with long-term maintenance strategies is a real opportunity. This study will provide evidence to better define post-relapse treatment in MM

Aromaticity and degree of aromatic condensation of char

The aromatic carbon structure is a defining property of chars and is often expressed with the help of two concepts: (i) aromaticity and (ii) degree of aromatic condensation. The varying extent of these two features is assumed to largely determine the relatively high persistence of charred material in the environment and is thus of interest for e.g. biochar characterization or carbon cycle studies. Consequently, a variety of methods has been used to assess the aromatic structure of chars, which has led to interesting insights but has complicated the comparison of data acquired with different methods. We therefore used a suite of seven methods (elemental analysis, MIR spectroscopy, NEXAFS spectroscopy, 13C NMR spectroscopy, BPCA analysis, lipid analysis and helium pycnometry) and compared 13 measurements from them using a diverse sample set of 38 laboratory chars. Our results demonstrate that most of the measurements could be categorized either into those which assess aromaticity or those which assess the degree of aromatic condensation. A variety of measurements, including relatively inexpensive and simple ones, reproducibly captured the two aromatic features in question, and data from different methods could therefore be compared. Moreover, general patterns between the two aromatic features and the pyrolysis conditions were revealed, supporting reconstruction of the highest heat treatment temperature (HTT) of char

Combined analysis of IGHV mutations, telomere length and CD49d identifies long-term progression-free survivors in TP53 wild-type CLL treated with FCR-based therapies

No description supplie

The addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma of all ages: results from ‘Myeloma XI’, a multicentre, open-label, randomised, phase III trial

Lenalidomide is an effective maintenance agent for patients with myeloma, prolonging first remission and, in transplant eligible patients, improving overall survival (OS) compared to observation. The ‘Myeloma XI’ trial, for newly diagnosed patients, aimed to evaluate whether the addition of the histone deacetylase inhibitor vorinostat to the lenalidomide maintenance backbone could improve outcomes further. Patients included in this analysis were randomised to maintenance therapy with lenalidomide alone (10 mg/day on days 1–21 of each 28-day cycle), or in combination with vorinostat (300 mg/day on day 1–7 and 15–21 of each 28-day cycle) with treatment continuing until unacceptable toxicity or progressive disease. There was no significant difference in median progression-free survival between those receiving lenalidomide-vorinostat or lenalidomide alone, 34 and 40 months respectively (hazard ratio [HR] 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96–1.44, p = 0.109). There was also no significant difference in median OS, not estimable and 75 months respectively (HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76–1.29, p = 0.929). Subgroup analysis demonstrated no statistically significant heterogeneity in outcomes. Combination lenalidomide-vorinostat appeared to be poorly tolerated with more dose modifications, fewer cycles of maintenance therapy delivered and higher rates of discontinuation due to toxicity than lenalidomide alone. The trial did not meet its primary end-point, there was no benefit from the addition of vorinostat to lenalidomide maintenance

Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma (FiTNEss (UK-MRA Myeloma XIV Trial)): a study protocol for a randomised phase III trial

INTRODUCTION: Multiple myeloma is a bone marrow cancer, which predominantly affects older people. The incidence is increasing in an ageing population.Over the last 10 years, patient outcomes have improved. However, this is less apparent in older, less fit patients, who are ineligible for stem cell transplant. Research is required in this patient group, taking into account frailty and aiming to improve: treatment tolerability, clinical outcomes and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Frailty-adjusted therapy in Transplant Non-Eligible patients with newly diagnosed Multiple Myeloma is a national, phase III, multicentre, randomised controlled trial comparing standard (reactive) and frailty-adjusted (adaptive) induction therapy delivery with ixazomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (IRD), and to compare maintenance lenalidomide to lenalidomide+ixazomib, in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma not suitable for stem cell transplant. Overall, 740 participants will be registered into the trial to allow 720 and 478 to be randomised at induction and maintenance, respectively.All participants will receive IRD induction with the dosing strategy randomised (1:1) at trial entry. Patients randomised to the standard, reactive arm will commence at the full dose followed by toxicity dependent reactive modifications. Patients randomised to the adaptive arm will commence at a dose level determined by their International Myeloma Working Group frailty score. Following 12 cycles of induction treatment, participants alive and progression free will undergo a second (double-blind) randomisation on a 1:1 basis to maintenance treatment with lenalidomide+placebo versus lenalidomide+ixazomib until disease progression or intolerance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the North East-Tyne & Wear South Research Ethics Committee (19/NE/0125) and capacity and capability confirmed by local research and development departments for each participating centre prior to opening to recruitment. Participants are required to provide written informed consent prior to trial registration. Trial results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications