Optimisation of pharmacy content in clinical cancer research protocols: Experience of the United Kingdom Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service

Background: Clarity and accuracy of the pharmacy aspects of cancer clinical trial protocols is essential. Inconsistencies and ambiguities in such protocols have the potential to delay research and jeopardise both patient safety and collection of credible data. The Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service was established by the UK National Cancer Research Network, currently known as National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network, to improve the quality of pharmacy-related content in cancer clinical research protocols. This article reports the scope of Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service, its methodology of mandated protocol review and pharmacy-related guidance initiatives and its current impact. Methods: Over a 6-year period (2008–2013) since the inception of Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service, cancer clinical trial protocols were reviewed by the service, prior to implementation at clinical trial sites. A customised Review Checklist was developed and used by a panel of experts to standardise the review process and report back queries and inconsistencies to chief investigators. Based on common queries, a Standard Protocol Template comprising specific guidance on drug-related content and a Pharmacy Manual Template were developed. In addition, a guidance framework was established to address ‘ad hoc’ pharmacy-related queries. The most common remarks made at protocol review have been summarised and categorised through retrospective analysis. In order to evaluate the impact of the service, chief investigators were asked to respond to queries made at protocol review and make appropriate changes to their protocols. Responses from chief investigators have been collated and acceptance rates determined. Results: A total of 176 protocols were reviewed. The median number of remarks per protocol was 26, of which 20 were deemed clinically relevant and mainly concerned the drug regimen, support medication, frequency and type of monitoring and drug supply aspects. Further analysis revealed that 62% of chief investigators responded to the review. All responses were positive with an overall acceptance rate of 89% of the proposed protocol changes. Conclusion: Review of pharmacy content of cancer clinical trial protocols is feasible and exposes many undetected clinically relevant issues that could hinder efficient trial conduct. Our service audit revealed that the majority of suggestions were effectively incorporated in the final protocols. The refinement of existing and development of new pharmacy-related guidance documents by Chemotherapy and Pharmacy Advisory Service might aid in better and safer clinical research

A randomised comparison evaluating changes in bone mineral density in advanced prostate cancer: luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists versus transdermal oestradiol

Background Luteinising hormone-releasing hormone agonists (LHRHa), used as androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer (PCa) management, reduce serum oestradiol as well as testosterone, causing bone mineral density (BMD) loss. Transdermal oestradiol is a potential alternative to LHRHa. Objective To compare BMD change in men receiving either LHRHa or oestradiol patches (OP). Design, setting, and participants Men with locally advanced or metastatic PCa participating in the randomised UK Prostate Adenocarcinoma TransCutaneous Hormones (PATCH) trial (allocation ratio of 1:2 for LHRHa:OP, 2006–2011; 1:1, thereafter) were recruited into a BMD study (2006–2012). Dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scans were performed at baseline, 1 yr, and 2 yr. Interventions LHRHa as per local practice, OP (FemSeven 100 μg/24 h patches). Outcome measurements and statistical analysis The primary outcome was 1-yr change in lumbar spine (LS) BMD from baseline compared between randomised arms using analysis of covariance. Results and limitations A total of 74 eligible men (LHRHa 28, OP 46) participated from seven centres. Baseline clinical characteristics and 3-mo castration rates (testosterone ≤1.7 nmol/l, LHRHa 96% [26 of 27], OP 96% [43 of 45]) were similar between arms. Mean 1-yr change in LS BMD was −0.021 g/cm3 for patients randomised to the LHRHa arm (mean percentage change −1.4%) and +0.069 g/cm3 for the OP arm (+6.0%; p < 0.001). Similar patterns were seen in hip and total body measurements. The largest difference between arms was at 2 yr for those remaining on allocated treatment only: LS BMD mean percentage change LHRHa −3.0% and OP +7.9% (p < 0.001). Conclusions Transdermal oestradiol as a single agent produces castration levels of testosterone while mitigating BMD loss. These early data provide further supporting evidence for the ongoing phase 3 trial

Exploratory outcome analyses according to stage and/or residual disease in the ICON7 trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer

Objective: In the randomized phase 3 ICON7 trial (ISRCTN91273375), adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) but not overall survival (OS; secondary endpoint) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. We explored treatment effect according to stage and extent of residual disease. Methods: Patients with stage IIB–IV or high-risk (grade 3/clear-cell) stage I–IIA ovarian cancer were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel either alone or with bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by single-agent bevacizumab for 12 further cycles (total duration 12 months). Post hoc exploratory analyses of subgroups defined by stage and extent of residual disease at diagnosis within the stage IIIB–IV population (European indication) was performed. Results: The PFS benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59–0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB–IV ovarian cancer with no visible residuum and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69–0.95) in 749 patients with stage IIIB–IV disease and visible residuum. As in the ITT population, no OS difference was detected in any subgroup except the previously described ‘high-risk’ subgroup. Safety results in analyzed subgroups were consistent with the overall population. Conclusions: Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. In patients with stage III with \u3e1 cm residuum, stage IV or inoperable disease, this translates into an OS benefit. No OS benefit or detriment was seen in other subgroups explored

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial

Background: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. Methods: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50–74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. Findings: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04–13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4–13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6–26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5–17·4]). Interpretation: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. Funding: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal

Exploratory outcome analyses according to stage and/or residual disease in the ICON7 trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel with or without bevacizumab for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer

Objective: In the randomized phase 3 ICON7 trial (ISRCTN91273375), adding bevacizumab to chemotherapy for newly diagnosed ovarian cancer significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; primary endpoint) but not overall survival (OS; secondary endpoint) in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population. We explored treatment effect according to stage and extent of residual disease. Methods: Patients with stage IIB-IV or high-risk (grade 3/clear-cell) stage I-IIA ovarian cancer were randomized to receive six cycles of carboplatin and paclitaxel either alone or with bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg every 3 weeks followed by single-agent bevacizumab for 12 further cycles (total duration 12 months). Post hoc exploratory analyses of subgroups defined by stage and extent of residual disease at diagnosis within the stage IIIB-IV population (European indication) was performed. Results: The PFS benefit from bevacizumab was seen consistently in all subgroups explored. The PFS hazard ratio was 0.77 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-0.99) in 411 patients with stage IIIB-IV ovarian cancer with no visible residuum and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.95) in 749 patients with stage IIIB-IV disease and visible residuum. As in the ITT population, no OS difference was detected in any subgroup except the previously described 'high-risk' subgroup. Safety results in analyzed subgroups were consistent with the overall population. Conclusions: Adding bevacizumab to front-line chemotherapy improves PFS irrespective of stage/residual disease. In patients with stage III with >1 cm residuum, stage IV or inoperable disease, this translates into an OS benefit. No OS benefit or detriment was seen in other subgroups explored

Combining Enzalutamide with Abiraterone, Prednisone, and Androgen Deprivation Therapy in the STAMPEDE Trial

There are compelling reasons to study the addition of both enzalutamide and abiraterone, in combination, to standard-of-care for hormone-naïve prostate cancer. Through a protocol amendment, this will be assessed in the STAMPEDE trial, with overall survival as primary outcome measure. © 2014 European Association of Urology

RAMPART : a model for a regulatory-ready academic-led phase III trial in the adjuvant renal cell carcinoma setting

AstraZeneca LP have provided an educational grant for the trial and free of charge durvalumab and tremelimumab. A small grant is also provided by Kidney Cancer UK. MRC CTU at UCL provides funding for staff working on the trial.The development of therapeutics in oncology is a highly active research area for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, but also has a strong academic base. Many new agents have been developed in recent years, most with specific biological targets. This has mandated the need to look at different ways to streamline the evaluation of new agents. One solution has been the development of adaptive trial designs that allow the evaluation of multiple agents, concentrating on the most promising agents while screening out those which are unlikely to benefit patients. Another way forward has been the growth of partnerships between academia and industry with the shared goal of designing and conducting high quality clinical trials which answer important clinical questions as efficiently as possible. The RAMPART trial (NCT03288532) brings together both of these processes in an attempt to improve outcomes for patients with locally advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC), where no globally acceptable adjuvant strategy after nephrectomy currently exist. RAMPART is led by the MRC CTU at University College London (UCL), in collaboration with other international academic groups and industry. We aim to facilitate the use of data from RAMPART, (dependent on outcomes), for a future regulatory submission that will extend the license of the agents being investigated. We share our experience in order to lay the foundations for an effective trial design and conduct framework and to guide others who may be considering similar collaborations.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

RAMPART : a phase III multi-arm multi-stage trial of adjuvant checkpoint inhibitors in patients with resected primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at high or intermediate risk of relapse

AstraZeneca LP have provided an educational grant for the trial and free of charge durvalumab and tremelimumab. A small grant is also provided by Kidney Cancer UK. MRC CTU at UCL also provides funding for staff working on the trial. The TransRAMPART sample collection is being funded by a Prospective Sample Collection award from Cancer Research UK.Background 20–60% of patients with initially locally advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) develop metastatic disease despite optimal surgical excision. Adjuvant strategies have been tested in RCC including cytokines, radiotherapy, hormones and oral tyrosine-kinase inhibitors (TKIs), with limited success. The predominant global standard-of-care after nephrectomy remains active monitoring. Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are effective in the treatment of metastatic RCC; RAMPART will investigate these agents in the adjuvant setting. Methods/design RAMPART is an international, UK-led trial investigating the addition of ICIs after nephrectomy in patients with resected locally advanced RCC. RAMPART is a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial, upon which additional research questions may be addressed over time. The target population is patients with histologically proven resected locally advanced RCC (clear cell and non-clear cell histological subtypes), with no residual macroscopic disease, who are at high or intermediate risk of relapse (Leibovich score 3–11). Patients with fully resected synchronous ipsilateral adrenal metastases are included. Participants are randomly assigned (3,2:2) to Arm A - active monitoring (no placebo) for one year, Arm B - durvalumab (PD-L1 inhibitor) 4-weekly for one year; or Arm C - combination therapy with durvalumab 4-weekly for one year plus two doses of tremelimumab (CTLA-4 inhibitor) at day 1 of the first two 4-weekly cycles. The co-primary outcomes are disease-free-survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary outcomes include safety, metastasis-free survival, RCC specific survival, quality of life, and patient and clinician preferences. Tumour tissue, plasma and urine are collected for molecular analysis (TransRAMPART).Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Adjuvant Chemotherapy for Muscle-invasive Bladder Cancer : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data from Randomised Controlled Trials

Context Our prior systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data (IPD) suggesting a benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive bladder cancer was limited by the number and size of included randomised trials. We have updated results to include additional trials, providing the most up-to-date and reliable evidence of the effects of this treatment. Objective To investigate the role of adjuvant cisplatin-based chemotherapy in the treatment of muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Evidence acquisition Published and unpublished trials were sought via searches of bibliographic databases, trials registers, conference proceedings, and hand searching. Updated IPD were centrally collected, checked, and analysed. Results from individual randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were combined using a two-stage fixed-effect model. Prespecified analyses explored any variation in effect by trial and participant characteristics. Evidence synthesis Analyses of ten RCTs (1183 participants) demonstrated a benefit of cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.70–0.96, p = 0.02). This represents an absolute improvement in survival of 6% at 5 yr, from 50% to 56%, and a 9% absolute benefit when adjusted for age, sex, pT stage, and pN category (HR = 0.77, 95% CI = 0.65–0.92, p = 0.004). There was no clear evidence that the effect varied by trial or participant characteristics. Adjuvant chemotherapy was also shown to improve recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.60–0.83, p < 0.001), locoregional recurrence-free survival (HR = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.55–0.85, p < 0.001), and metastasis-free survival (HR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.65–0.95, p = 0.01), with absolute benefits of 11%, 11%, and 8%, respectively. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrates that cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy is a valid option for improving outcomes for muscle-invasive bladder cancer. Patient summary We looked at the effect of cisplatin-based chemotherapy on outcomes in participants with muscle-invasive bladder cancer. We gathered this information from eligible randomised controlled trials. We demonstrated that cisplatin-based chemotherapy is a valid option for improving outcomes of muscle-invasive bladder cancer

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(23)00230-9Background Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. Methods The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. Findings We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55–85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9–11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (–1%, 95% CI –15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, –10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). Interpretation The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes.This study was funded by the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (grant number MC_UU_00004/06, to support CLV, DJF, LHR, ER, SB, JFT, IRW, and MKBP) and by Prostate Cancer UK (grant number RIA 16-ST2-020, awarded to JFT, to support DJF, LHR, PJG, and ER). PJG is partly supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research and Care's Development and Skills Enhancement Award (NIHR301653).Published versio