Randomized trial of erlotinib plus whole-brain radiotherapy for NSCLC patients with multiple brain metastases

Background: Median survival of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with brain metastases is poor. We examined concurrent erlotinib and whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) followed by maintenance erlotinib in patients with untreated brain metastases, given the potential radiosensitizing properties of erlotinib and its direct effect on brain metastases and systemic activity.Methods: Eighty NSCLC patients with KPS of 70 and greater and multiple brain metastases were randomly assigned to placebo (n = 40) or erlotinib (100mg, n = 40) given concurrently with WBRT (20 Gy in 5 fractions). Following WBRT, patients continued with placebo or erlotinib (150mg) until disease progression. The primary end point was neurological progression-free survival (nPFS); hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated using Cox regression. All P values were two-sided.Results: Fifteen patients (37.5%) from each arm were alive and without neurological progression 2 months after WBRT. Median nPFS was 1.6 months in both arms; nPFS HR 0.95 (95% CI = 0.59 to1.54; P = .84). Median overall survival (OS) was 2.9 and 3.4 months in the placebo and erlotinib arms; HR 0.95 (95% CI = 0.58 to 1.55; P = .83). The frequency of epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutations was low with only 1 of 35 (2.9%) patients with available samples had activating EGFR-mutations. Grade 3/4 adverse event rates were similar between the two groups (70.0% in each arm), except for rash 20.0% (erlotinib) vs 5.0% (placebo), and fatigue 17.5% vs 35.0%. No statistically significant quality of life differences were found.Conclusions: Our study showed no advantage in nPFS or OS for concurrent erlotinib and WBRT followed by maintenance erlotinib in patients with predominantly EGFR wild-type NSCLC and multiple brain metastases compared to placebo. Future studies should focus on the role of erlotinib with or without WBRT in patients with EGFR mutations.Up to 40% of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) develop brain metastases (BM), which are associated with poor outcome (median survival <5 months) (1–3). Treatment options include whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) with or without corticosteroids. Modifying the radiation dose or fractionation or combining radiotherapy with radiosensitizers have not substantially improved prognosis (4–10). More than half of patients treated with WBRT ultimately die of progressive systemic disease (11–13).Erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) pathway inhibitor, is currently approved as first-line treatment for advanced NSCLC patients harboring EGFR mutations, and, as maintenance, second-line or third-line treatments following chemotherapy (14–17). Pre-clinical data show that erlotinib enhances the inhibitory effect of ionizing radiation in lung cancer, and it crosses the blood-brain barrier, so it could be used to provide sufficient radiosensitizing and therapeutic level in the brain (18–22).To exploit the potential radiosensitizing properties, the direct effect on brain metastases, and systemic activity of erlotinib, we examined the role of erlotinib given concurrently with WBRT, then as maintenance

Research in progress--LungSEARCH: a randomised controlled trial of surveillance for the early detection of lung cancer in a high-risk group.

UNLABELLED: Low-dose CT screening for lung cancer is effective but expensive. Therefore, cheaper or more focused screening strategies may be required. LungSEARCH is a randomised prospective trial of 1568 high-risk individuals (ie, current or former moderate to heavy smokers with mild/moderate COPD) who undergo either annual sputum cytology/cytometry testing or no screening. Those with abnormal sputum then receive annual CT and fluorescent bronchoscopy for the remainder of 5 years, to identify early stage lung cancer. It is hoped that these simple initial tests could identify those requiring expensive CT scans, and the aim is to demonstrate a stage shift towards early stage cancers.Trial registration numbers ISRCTN: ISRCTN80745975, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00512746

Urinary biomarkers in metastatic bone pain: Results from a multicentre randomized trial of ibandronate compared to single dose radiotherapy for localized metastatic bone pain in prostate cancer (RIB)

BACKGROUND: The Radiotherapy IBandronate (RIB) trial compared single dose radiotherapy and a single infusion of ibandronate in 470 bisphosphonate naïve patients with metastatic bone pain from prostate cancer randomised into a non-inferiority two arm study. Results for the primary endpoint of pain score response at 4 weeks showed that the ibandronate arm was non-inferior to single dose radiotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHOD: In addition to pain assessments including analgesic use made at baseline, 4, 8, 12, 26 and 52 weeks, urine was collected at baseline, 4 and 12 weeks. It was subsequently analysed for urinary N-telopeptide (NTx) and cystatin C. Linear regression models were used to compare the continuous outcome measures for urinary markers within treatment arms and baseline measurements were included as covariates. Interaction terms were fitted to allow for cross-treatment group comparisons. RESULTS: The primary endpoint of the RIB trial was worst pain response at 4 weeks and there was no treatment difference seen. Urine samples and paired pain scores at 4 weeks were available for 273 patients (radiotherapy 168; ibandronate 159) The baseline samples measured for the RIB trial had an average concentration of 193 nM BCE/mM creatinine (range of 7.3–1871) compared to the quoted normal range of 33 nM BCE/mM creatinine (3 to 63). In contrast the average value of Cystatin C was 66 ng/ml (ranges ND – 1120 ng/ml) compared to the quoted normal range of 62.9 ng/ml (ranges 12.6–188 ng/ml). A statistically significant reduction in NTx concentrations between baseline and 4 weeks was seen in the ibandronate arm but not in the radiotherapy arm. No correlation between pain response and urinary marker concentration was seen in either the ibandronate or radiotherapy cohort at any time point. CONCLUSION: NTx was significantly raised compared to the normal range consistent with a role as a biomarker for bone metastases from prostate cancer. A significant reduction in NTx 4 weeks after ibandronate is consistent with its action in osteoclast inhibition which was not seen after radiotherapy implying a different mode of action for radiation. There was no correlation between bone biomarker levels and pain response

Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of brief, habit-based, lifestyle advice for cancer survivors: exploring behavioural outcomes for the Advancing Survivorship Cancer Outcomes Trial (ASCOT)

Introduction Positive health behaviours such as regular physical activity and a healthy diet have significant effects on cancer outcomes. There is a need for simple but effective behaviour change interventions with the potential to be implemented within the cancer care pathway. Habit-based advice encourages repetition of a behaviour in a consistent context so that the behaviour becomes increasingly automatic in response to a specific contextual cue. This approach therefore encourages long-term behaviour change and can be delivered through printed materials. ‘Healthy Habits for Life’ is a brief intervention based on habit theory, and incorporating printed materials plus a personally tailored discussion, that has been designed specifically for patients with a diagnosis of cancer. The aim of this trial was to test the effect of ‘Healthy Habits for Life’ on a composite health behaviour risk index (CHBRI) over 3 months in patients with a diagnosis of breast, colorectal or prostate cancer. Method and analysis A 2-arm, individually randomised controlled trial in patients with breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. Patients will be recruited over 18 months from 7 National Health Service Trusts in London and Essex. Following baseline assessments and allocation to intervention or usual care, patients are followed up at 3 and 6 months. The primary outcome will be change in CHBRI at 3 months. Maintenance of any changes over 6 months, and changes in individual health behaviours (including dietary intake, physical activity, alcohol consumption and smoking status) will also be explored. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained through the National Research Ethics Service Committee South Central—Oxford B via the Integrated Research Application System (reference number 14/SC/1369). Results of this study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and scientific presentation

Stopping clinical trials early for futility: retrospective analysis of several randomised clinical studies

Background: Many clinical trials show no overall benefit. We examined futility analyses applied to trials with different effect sizes. Methods: Ten randomised cancer trials were retrospectively analysed; target sample size reached in all. The hazard ratio indicated no overall benefit (n=5), or moderate (n=4) or large (n=1) treatment effects. Futility analyses were applied after 25, 50 and 75% of events were observed, or patients were recruited. Outcomes were conditional power (CP), and time and cost savings. Results: Futility analyses could stop some trials with no benefit, but not all. After observing 50% of the target number of events, 3 out of 5 trials with no benefit could be stopped early (low CPless than or equal to15%). Trial duration for two studies could be reduced by 4–24 months, saving £44 000–231 000, but the third had already stopped recruiting, hence no savings were made. However, of concern was that 2 of the 4 trials with moderate treatment effects could be stopped early at some point, although they eventually showed worthwhile benefits. Conclusions: Careful application of futility can lead to future patients in a trial not being given an ineffective treatment, and should therefore be used more often. A secondary consideration is that it could shorten trial duration and reduce costs. However, studies with modest treatment effects could be inappropriately stopped early. Unless there is very good evidence for futility, it is often best to continue to the planned end

Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Background: Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6–12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. Methods: The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. Findings: We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79–86), 84% (81–87), and 87% (84–89), respectively and was 72% (66–78), 59% (49–67), and 46% (37–55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81–88), 86% (82–88), and 87% (84–90), respectively, and was 75% (68–80), 61% (50–70), and 48% (36–58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. Interpretation: Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. Funding: Cancer Research UK