Corran Roberts

Prediction models for cardiovascular disease risk in the general population: systematic review

Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013. Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population. Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively. Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Objectives The absolute annual risk of patients with Barretts oesophagus (BO) developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is ≤0.5%. Screening BO patients for malignant progression using endoscopic surveillance is widely practised. To assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this, we developed a protocol for a randomized controlled trial of surveillance versus ‘at need’ endoscopy. Methods In a multicentre trial, 3400 BO patients randomized to either 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance or ‘at need’ endoscopy will be followed up for 10 years. Urgent endoscopy will be offered to all patients who develop symptoms of dysphagia, unexplained weight loss >7lb (3.2kg), iron deficiency anaemia, recurrent vomiting, or worsening upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Participants must have endoscopically and histologically confirmed BO, with circumferential BO ≥1cm or maximal tongue/island length ≥2 cm. Candidates with existing oesophageal high-grade dysplasia or cancer, or previous upper gastrointestinal cancer will be excluded. Primary outcome will be overall survival. Secondary outcomes will be cost effectiveness (cost per life year saved and quality adjusted life years); cancer-specific survival; time to OAC diagnosis and stage at diagnosis; morbidity and mortality related to any interventions; and frequency of endoscopy. Conclusions This randomized trial will provide data to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of screening BO patients for OAC.

Gefitinib and EGFR Gene Copy Number Aberrations in Esophageal Cancer.

Purpose The Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial demonstrated improved progression-free survival with the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor gefitinib relative to placebo in patients with advanced esophageal cancer who had disease progression after chemotherapy. Rapid and durable responses were observed in a minority of patients. We hypothesized that genetic aberration of the EGFR pathway would identify patients benefitting from gefitinib. Methods A prespecified, blinded molecular analysis of Cancer Esophagus Gefitinib trial tumors was conducted to compare efficacy of gefitinib with that of placebo according to EGFR copy number gain (CNG) and EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutation status. EGFR CNG was determined by fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) using prespecified criteria and EGFR FISH-positive status was defined as high polysomy or amplification. Results Biomarker data were available for 340 patients. In EGFR FISH-positive tumors (20.2%), overall survival was improved with gefitinib compared with placebo (hazard ratio [HR] for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.35 to 1.00; P = .05). In EGFR FISH-negative tumors, there was no difference in overall survival with gefitinib compared with placebo (HR for death, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.18; P = .46). Patients with EGFR amplification (7.2%) gained greatest benefit from gefitinib (HR for death, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.64; P = .006). There was no difference in overall survival for gefitinib versus placebo for patients with EGFR, KRAS, BRAF, and PIK3CA mutations, or for any mutation versus none. Conclusion EGFR CNG assessed by FISH appears to identify a subgroup of patients with esophageal cancer who may benefit from gefitinib as a second-line treatment. Results of this study suggest that anti-EGFR therapies should be investigated in prospective clinical trials in different settings in EGFR FISH-positive and, in particular, EGFR-amplified esophageal cancer.

Clinical Trial of Oral Nelfinavir before and during Radiation Therapy for Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Purpose: Nelfinavir, a PI3K pathway inhibitor, is a radiosensitizer that increases tumor blood flow in preclinical models. We conducted an early-phase study to demonstrate the safety of nelfinavir combined with hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT) and to develop biomarkers of tumor perfusion and radiosensitization for this combinatorial approach. Experimental Design: Ten patients with T3-4 N0-2 M1 rectal cancer received 7 days of oral nelfinavir (1,250 mg b.i.d.) and a further 7 days of nelfinavir during pelvic RT (25 Gy/5 fractions/7 days). Perfusion CT (p-CT) and DCE-MRI scans were performed pretreatment, after 7 days of nelfinavir and prior to the last fraction of RT. Biopsies taken pretreatment and 7 days after the last fraction of RT were analyzed for tumor cell density (TCD). Results: There were 3 drug-related grade 3 adverse events: diarrhea, rash, and lymphopenia. On DCE-MRI, there was a mean 42% increase in median Ktrans, and a corresponding median 30% increase in mean blood flow on p-CT during RT in combination with nelfinavir. Median TCD decreased from 24.3% at baseline to 9.2% in biopsies taken 7 days after RT (P = 0.01). Overall, 5 of 9 evaluable patients exhibited good tumor regression on MRI assessed by tumor regression grade (mrTRG). Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate nelfinavir in combination with RT without concurrent chemotherapy. It has shown that nelfinavir-RT is well tolerated and is associated with increased blood flow to rectal tumors. The efficacy of nelfinavir-RT versus RT alone merits clinical evaluation, including measurement of tumor blood flow. Clin Cancer Res; 22(8); 1922–31. ©2016 AACR. See related commentary by Meyn et al., p. 1834

Impact of a web-based tool (WebCONSORT) to improve the reporting of randomised trials: results of a randomised controlled trial

BackgroundThe CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications.MethodsWe conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision.ResultsA total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n = 166; control n = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials (n = 94; n = 103). Over a third (39%; n = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic (n = 43; n = 50), pragmatic (n = 20; n = 16) and cluster (n = 10; n = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.10).ConclusionsThis study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

Single arm NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with Ofatumumab in induction and maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed Richter’s syndrome

BackgroundTransformation of B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (B-CLL) to diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) (Richter’s syndrome (RS)) is a rare (2-15% of patients) but catastrophic complication of B-CLL. Dose-intense chemotherapy regimens investigated in small single institution trials, but with the exception of bone marrow transplantation for a minority of patients, little has improved the median overall survival of patients with RS beyond eight months. Patients are often elderly, immunosuppressed, possess co-morbidities and have a deteriorating performance status. TP53 disruption is a common molecular abnormality noted in RS and contributes to the tumour’s chemotherapy resistance. Ofatumumab is a fully human anti-CD20 monoclonal IgG1κ antibody that targets a unique epitope on B lymphocytes. It has displayed increased binding affinity and a longer dissociation time when compared to rituximab resulting in improved complement dependent cellular cytotoxicity (CDCC); a mechanism with the potential to overcome apoptosis-resistance in TP53 disruption. Given the prevalence of TP53 disruption in RS, Ofatumumab was considered a relatively non-toxic agent with a sound rationale to test in a prospective multicentre trial as an adjunct to CHOP induction and subsequent ofatumumab maintenance therapy in responding patients.Methods/DesignThe CHOP-OR study is a prospective phase II study to evaluate the safety, feasibility and activity of a CHOP chemotherapy in combination with ofatumumab in induction and subsequent maintenance for patients with newly diagnosed RS. The primary objective will be the overall response rate (ORR) in patients with RS after six cycles of CHOP-O. The secondary objectives include feasibility of recruitment, progression free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and toxicity. The study will be accompanied by exploratory analysis of the genomic landscape of RS in newly diagnosed patients.DiscussionThe CHOP-OR trial evaluates the safety, feasibility and activity of CHOP plus Ofatumumab induction and Ofatumumab maintenance in new RS patients. The study is currently recruiting and has met the interim analysis criteria, with more than 7 of the first 25 participants achieving a CR or PR after six cycles of CHOP-O. The study has the potential to identify predictive biomarkers for this treatment modality.Trial registrationNCT01171378.

Outcome of Azacitidine Therapy in Acute Myeloid Leukemia Is not Improved by Concurrent Vorinostat Therapy but Is Predicted by a Diagnostic Molecular Signature.

Purpose: Azacitidine (AZA) is a novel therapeutic option in older patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), but its rational utilization is compromised by the fact that neither the determinants of clinical response nor its mechanism of action are defined. Co-administration of histone deacetylase inhibitors, such as vorinostat (VOR), is reported to improve the clinical activity of AZA, but this has not been prospectively studied in patients with AML. Experimental Design: We compared outcomes in 259 adults with AML (n = 217) and MDS (n = 42) randomized to receive either AZA monotherapy (75 mg/m2 × 7 days every 28 days) or AZA combined with VOR 300 mg twice a day on days 3 to 9 orally. Next-generation sequencing was performed in 250 patients on 41 genes commonly mutated in AML. Serial immunophenotyping of progenitor cells was performed in 47 patients. Results: Co-administration of VOR did not increase the overall response rate (P = 0.84) or overall survival (OS; P = 0.32). Specifically, no benefit was identified in either de novo or relapsed AML. Mutations in the genes CDKN2A (P = 0.0001), IDH1 (P = 0.004), and TP53 (P = 0.003) were associated with reduced OS. Lymphoid multipotential progenitor populations were greatly expanded at diagnosis and although reduced in size in responding patients remained detectable throughout treatment. Conclusions: This study demonstrates no benefit of concurrent administration of VOR with AZA but identifies a mutational signature predictive of outcome after AZA-based therapy. The correlation between heterozygous loss of function CDKN2A mutations and decreased OS implicates induction of cell-cycle arrest as a mechanism by which AZA exerts its clinical activity. Clin Cancer Res; 23(21); 6430–40. ©2017 AACR.

NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with ofatumumab in induction and maintenance in newly diagnosed Richter syndrome.

Richter syndrome (RS) is associated with chemotherapy resistance and a poor historical median overall survival (OS) of 8–10 months. We conducted a phase II trial of standard CHOP‐21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone every 21 d) with ofatumumab induction (Cycle 1: 300 mg day 1, 1000 mg day 8, 1000 mg day 15; Cycles 2–6: 1000 mg day 1) (CHOP‐O) followed by 12 months ofatumumab maintenance (1000 mg given 8‐weekly for up to six cycles). Forty‐three patients were recruited of whom 37 were evaluable. Seventy‐three per cent were aged >60 years. Over half of the patients received a fludarabine and cyclophosphamide‐based regimen as prior CLL treatment. The overall response rate was 46% (complete response 27%, partial response 19%) at six cycles. The median progression‐free survival was 6·2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·9–14·0 months) and median OS was 11·4 months (95% CI 6·4–25·6 months). Treatment‐naïve and TP53‐intact patients had improved outcomes. Fifteen episodes of neutropenic fever and 46 non‐neutropenic infections were observed. There were no treatment‐related deaths. Seven patients received platinum‐containing salvage at progression, with only one patient obtaining an adequate response to proceed to allogeneic transplantation. CHOP‐O with ofatumumab maintenance provides minimal benefit beyond CHOP plus rutuximab. Standard immunochemotherapy for RS remains wholly inadequate for unselected RS. Multinational trials incorporating novel agents are urgently needed.

Association between trial registration and positive study findings: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials-ESORT).

Abstract Objective To assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source. Design Cross sectional study. Study sample All primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies. Main outcome measure Association between trial registration and positive study findings. Results 1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration. Conclusion Among published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials.

RADVAN: a randomised phase 2 trial of WBRT plus vandetanib for melanoma brain metastases - results and lessons learnt.

Background:Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases.Methods:In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials.Results:Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6–5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2–4.8) in the placebo group (P=0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6–6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2–7.2), respectively (P=0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments.Conclusions:The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.