Cheryl Pugh

Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial and update of systematic review

BACKGROUND Although surgery offers the best chance of cure for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the overall 5-year survival rate is modest, and improvements are urgently needed. In the 1990s, much interest was generated from two small trials that reported striking results with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and therefore our intergroup randomised trial was designed to investigate whether, in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer of any stage, outcomes could be improved by giving platinum-based chemotherapy before surgery. METHODS Patients were randomised to receive either surgery alone (S), or three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery (CT-S). Before randomisation, clinicians chose the chemotherapy that would be given from a list of six standard regimens. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, which was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN25582437. RESULTS 519 patients were randomised (S: 261, CT-S: 258) from 70 centres in the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium. Most (61%) were clinical stage I, with 31% stage II, and 7% stage III. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was feasible (75% of patients received all three cycles of chemotherapy), resulted in a good response rate (49% [95% CI 43%-55%]) and down-staging in 31% (25%-37%) of patients, and did not alter the type or completeness of the surgery (lobectomy: S: 56%, CT-S: 60%, complete resection: S: 80%, CT-S: 82%). Post-operative complications were not increased in the CT-S group, and no impairment of quality of life was observed. However, there was no evidence of a benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.31, p=0.86). Updating the systematic review by addition of the present result suggests a 12% relative survival benefit with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1507 patients, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.01, p=0.07), equivalent to an absolute improvement in survival of 5% at 5 years INTERPRETATION Although there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the result is statistically consistent with previous trials, and therefore adds considerable weight to the current evidence.

Active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in the treatment of patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MS01): a multicentre randomised trial

Summary Background Malignant pleural mesothelioma is almost always fatal, and few treatment options are available. Although active symptom control (ASC) has been recommended for the management of this disease, no consensus exists for the role of chemotherapy. We investigated whether the addition of chemotherapy to ASC improved survival and quality of life. Methods 409 patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma, from 76 centres in the UK and two in Australia, were randomly assigned to ASC alone (treatment could include steroids, analgesic drugs, bronchodilators, palliative radiotherapy [n=136]); to ASC plus MVP (four cycles of mitomycin 6 mg/m2, vinblastine 6 mg/m2, and cisplatin 50 mg/m2 every 3 weeks [n=137]); or to ASC plus vinorelbine (one injection of vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 every week for 12 weeks [n=136]). Randomisation was done by minimisation, with stratification for WHO performance status, histology, and centre. Follow-up was every 3 weeks to 21 weeks after randomisation, and every 8 weeks thereafter. Because of slow accrual, the two chemotherapy groups were combined and compared with ASC alone for the primary outcome of overall survival. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN54469112. Findings At the time of analysis, 393 (96%) patients had died (ASC 132 [97%], ASC plus MVP 132 [96%], ASC plus vinorelbine 129 [95%]). Compared with ASC alone, we noted a small, non-significant survival benefit for ASC plus chemotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·89 [95% CI 0·72–1·10]; p=0·29). Median survival was 7·6 months in the ASC alone group and 8·5 months in the ASC plus chemotherapy group. Exploratory analyses suggested a survival advantage for ASC plus vinorelbine compared with ASC alone (HR 0·80 [0·63–1·02]; p=0·08), with a median survival of 9·5 months. There was no evidence of a survival benefit with ASC plus MVP (HR 0·99 [0·78–1·27]; p=0·95). We observed no between-group differences in four predefined quality-of-life subscales (physical functioning, pain, dyspnoea, and global health status) at any of the assessments in the first 6 months. Interpretation The addition of chemotherapy to ASC offers no significant benefits in terms of overall survival or quality of life. However, exploratory analyses suggested that vinorelbine merits further investigation. Funding Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council (UK).

Intermittent chemotherapy plus either intermittent or continuous cetuximab for first-line treatment of patients with KRAS wild-type advanced colorectal cancer (COIN-B): a randomised phase 2 trial

Summary Background Advanced colorectal cancer is treated with a combination of cytotoxic drugs and targeted treatments. However, how best to minimise the time spent taking cytotoxic drugs and whether molecular selection can refine this further is unknown. The primary aim of this study was to establish how cetuximab might be safely and effectively added to intermittent chemotherapy. Methods COIN-B was an open-label, multicentre, randomised, exploratory phase 2 trial done at 30 hospitals in the UK and one in Cyprus. We enrolled patients with advanced colorectal cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for metastases. Randomisation was done centrally (by telephone) by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation with a random element. Treatment allocation was not masked. Patients were assigned (1:1) to intermittent chemotherapy plus intermittent cetuximab or to intermittent chemotherapy plus continuous cetuximab. Chemotherapy was FOLFOX (folinic acid and oxaliplatin followed by bolus and infused fluorouracil). Patients in both groups received FOLFOX and weekly cetuximab for 12 weeks, then either had a planned interruption (those taking intermittent cetuximab) or planned maintenance by continuing on weekly cetuximab (continuous cetuximab). On RECIST progression, FOLFOX plus cetuximab or FOLFOX was recommenced for 12 weeks followed by further interruption or maintenance cetuximab, respectively. The primary outcome was failure-free survival at 10 months. The primary analysis population consisted of patients who completed 12 weeks of treatment without progression, death, or leaving the trial. We tested BRAF and NRAS status retrospectively. The trial was registered, ISRCTN38375681. Findings We registered 401 patients, 226 of whom were enrolled. Results for 169 with KRAS wild-type are reported here, 78 (46%) assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 91 (54%) to continuous cetuximab. 64 patients assigned to intermittent cetuximab and 66 of those assigned to continuous cetuximab were included in the primary analysis. 10-month failure-free survival was 50% (lower bound of 95% CI 39) in the intermittent group versus 52% (lower bound of 95% CI 41) in the continuous group; median failure-free survival was 12·2 months (95% CI 8·8–15·6) and 14·3 months (10·7–20·4), respectively. The most common grade 3–4 adverse events were skin rash (21 [27%] of 77 patients vs 20 [22%] of 92 patients), neutropenia (22 [29%] vs 30 [33%]), diarrhoea (14 [18%] vs 23 [25%]), and lethargy (20 [26%] vs 19 [21%]). Interpretation Cetuximab was safely incorporated in two first-line intermittent chemotherapy strategies. Maintenance of biological monotherapy, with less cytotoxic chemotherapy within the first 6 months, in molecularly selected patients is promising and should be validated in phase 3 trials. Funding UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGaA.

Induction chemotherapy and continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy (chart) for patients with locally advanced inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer: the MRC INCH randomized trial.

PURPOSE Recent clinical trials and meta-analyses have shown that both CHART (continuous hyperfractionated accelerated radiation therapy) and induction chemotherapy offer a survival advantage over conventional radical radiotherapy for patients with inoperable non-small cell-lung cancer (NSCLC). This multicenter randomized controlled trial (INCH) was set up to assess the value of giving induction chemotherapy before CHART. METHODS AND MATERIALS Patients with histologically confirmed, inoperable, Stage I-III NSCLC were randomized to induction chemotherapy (ICT) (three cycles of cisplatin-based chemotherapy followed by CHART) or CHART alone. RESULTS Forty-six patients were randomized (23 in each treatment arm) from 9 UK centers. As a result of poor accrual, the trial was closed in December 2007. Twenty-eight patients were male, 28 had squamous cell histology, 34 were Stage IIIA or IIIB, and all baseline characteristics were well balanced between the two treatment arms. Seventeen (74%) of the 23 ICT patients completed the three cycles of chemotherapy. All 42 (22 CHART + 20 ICT) patients who received CHART completed the prescribed treatment. Median survival was 17 months in the CHART arm and 25 months in the ICT arm (hazard ratio of 0.60 [95% CI 0.31-1.16], p = 0.127). Grade 3 or 4 adverse events (mainly fatigue, dysphagia, breathlessness, and anorexia) were reported for 13 (57%) CHART and 13 (65%) ICT patients. CONCLUSIONS This small randomized trial indicates that ICT followed by CHART is feasible and well tolerated. Despite closing early because of poor accrual, and so failing to show clear evidence of a survival benefit for the additional chemotherapy, the results suggest that CHART, and ICT before CHART, remain important options for the treatment of inoperable NSCLC and deserve further study.

Pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation of the FOCUS4 personalised therapy trial

Introduction Molecular characterisation of tumours is increasing personalisation of cancer therapy, tailored to an individual and their cancer. FOCUS4 is a molecularly stratified clinical trial for patients with advanced colorectal cancer. During an initial 16-week period of standard first-line chemotherapy, tumour tissue will undergo several molecular assays, with the results used for cohort allocation, then randomisation. Laboratories in Leeds and Cardiff will perform the molecular testing. The results of a rigorous pre-trial inter-laboratory analytical validation are presented and discussed. Methods Wales Cancer Bank supplied FFPE tumour blocks from 97 mCRC patients with consent for use in further research. Both laboratories processed each sample according to an agreed definitive FOCUS4 laboratory protocol, reporting results directly to the MRC Trial Management Group for independent cross-referencing. Results Pyrosequencing analysis of mutation status at KRAS codons12/13/61/146, NRAS codons12/13/61, BRAF codon600 and PIK3CA codons542/545/546/1047, generated highly concordant results. Two samples gave discrepant results; in one a PIK3CA mutation was detected only in Leeds, and in the other, a PIK3CA mutation was only detected in Cardiff. pTEN and mismatch repair (MMR) protein expression was assessed by immunohistochemistry (IHC) resulting in 6/97 discordant results for pTEN and 5/388 for MMR, resolved upon joint review. Tumour heterogeneity was likely responsible for pyrosequencing discrepancies. The presence of signet-ring cells, necrosis, mucin, edge-effects and over-counterstaining influenced IHC discrepancies. Conclusions Pre-trial assay analytical validation is essential to ensure appropriate selection of patients for targeted therapies. This is feasible for both mutation testing and immunohistochemical assays and must be built into the workup of such trials. Trial registration number ISRCTN90061564.

Releasing interim results from a randomised clinical trial: an example from the QUARTZ trial

QUARTZ is the first phase III randomised clinical trial of whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) for patients with inoperable brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer. It is designed as a non-inferiority trial to assess whether WBRT may be omitted without detriment to the patient’s survival while improving quality of life. QUARTZ opened to recruitment in March 2007 and currently has 76 UK and Australian centres open. Despite universal support of the importance of the question and a number of major initiatives aimed at improving recruitment, by mid-2010 recruitment was slower than targeted and the trial was under threat of closure. It was suggested that one of the reasons for investigators not offering the trial to large numbers of their patients and for patients rejecting randomisation, was the lack of good quality preliminary randomised data to support the trial question. Therefore it was proposed to make the unusual step to release interim results from the trial in order to provide investigators with further information upon which to base trial decisions and discussions.

111 Quality of life after treatment for brain metastases: interim data from the MRC QUARTZ clinical trial. Part two, symptoms, quality of life and data completion

111 Quality of life after treatment for brain metastases: interim data from the MRC QUARTZ clinical trial. Part two, symptoms, quality of life and data completion P. Mulvenna1, R. Barton2, C. Faivre-Finn3, P. Wilson4, R. Langley5, C. Pugh5, M. Nankivell5. 1Northern Centre for Cancer Care, Freeman Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 2Castle Hill Hospital, Hull, United Kingdom, 3The Christie, Manchester, United Kingdom, 4University Hospitals Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom, 5MRC Clinical Trials Unit, London, United Kingdom

Quality of life after radiotherapy and steroids in patients with inoperable brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer: the QUARTZ trial

Mesothelioma Framework, launched by the Department of Health Lung Cancer and Mesothelioma Advisory Group (LCMAG) in February 2007, aims to provide Strategic Health Authorities (SHA’s), Cancer Networks, Primary Care Trusts (PCT’s) and NHS Trusts advice and guidance on how to better organise mesothelioma services in order to standardise and improve the quality of care throughout the UK. The M-NAT initiative will provide an opportunity for nursing services for people with mesothelioma to be developed to a uniformly high level across the country. To date M-NAT has 43 members representing Scotland, Wales and every English cancer network except one. This core membership is able to cascade information and support to the wider community of nurses working within their network. M-NAT has met three times and two more dates are scheduled for 2009. Regular contact with, and support of, the membership is maintained by e-mail communication. The team has undertaken a detailed review of the Mesothelioma Framework and set its initial priorities: • To develop as a national team • To develop a national mesothelioma patient information pack • To develop a national nursing care pathway for patients • To develop a programme of nursing audit and research in mesothelioma. A baseline survey of members has also been undertaken identifying members’ characteristics, level of understanding, knowledge, skills and confidence in meeting the needs of mesothelioma patients and their carers, as well as their expectations and hopes for M-NAT. This poster will describe the M-NAT initiative in greater detail.