Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Ernest Marshall is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Ernest Marshall.


Lancet Oncology | 2014

Adjuvant bevacizumab in patients with melanoma at high risk of recurrence (AVAST-M): Preplanned interim results from a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 study

Pippa Corrie; Andrea Marshall; Janet A. Dunn; Mark R. Middleton; Paul Nathan; Martin Gore; Neville Davidson; Steve Nicholson; Charles Kelly; Maria Marples; Sarah Danson; Ernest Marshall; Stephen Houston; Ruth Board; Ashita Waterston; Jenny Nobes; Mark Harries; Satish Kumar; Gemma Young; Paul Lorigan

BACKGROUND Bevacizumab, a monoclonal antibody that targets VEGF, has shown restricted activity in patients with advanced melanoma. We aimed to assess the role of bevacizumab as adjuvant treatment for patients with resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. We report results from the preplanned interim analysis. METHODS We did a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 48 centres in the UK between July 18, 2007, and March 29, 2012. Patients aged 16 years or older with American Joint Committee on Cancer stage (AJCC) stage IIB, IIC, and III cutaneous melanoma were randomly allocated (1:1), via a central, computer-based minimisation procedure, to receive intravenous bevacizumab 7.5 mg/kg, every 3 weeks for 1 year, or to observation. Randomisation was stratified by Breslow thickness of the primary tumour, N stage according to AJCC staging criteria, ulceration of the primary tumour, and patient sex. The primary endpoint was overall survival; secondary endpoints included disease-free interval, distant-metastases interval and quality of life. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. This trial is registered as an International Standardised Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN81261306. FINDINGS 1343 patients were randomised to either the bevacizumab group (n=671) or the observation group (n=672). Median follow-up was 25 months (IQR 16-37) in the bevacizumab group and 25 months (17-37) in the observation group. At the time of interim analysis, 286 (21%) of 1343 enrolled patients had died: 140 (21%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 146 (22%) of 672 patients in the observation group. 134 (96%) of patients in the bevacizumab group died because of melanoma versus 139 (95%) in the observation group. We noted no significant difference in overall survival between treatment groups (hazard ratio [HR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.78-1.22; p=0.76); this finding persisted after adjustment for stratification variables (HR 1.03; 95% CI 0.81-1.29; p=0.83). Median duration of treatment with bevacizumab was 51 weeks (IQR 21-52) and dose intensity was 86% (41-96), showing good tolerability. 180 grade 3 or 4 adverse events were recorded in 101 (15%) of 671 patients in the bevacizumab group, and 36 (5%) of 672 patients in the observation group. Bevacizumab resulted in a higher incidence of grade 3 hypertension than did observation (41 [6%] vs one [<1%]). There was an improvement in disease-free interval for patients in the bevacizumab group compared with those in the observation group (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.98, p=0.03), but no significant difference between groups for distant-metastasis-free interval (HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73-1.06, p=0.18). No significant differences were noted between treatment groups in the standardised area under the curve for any of the quality-of-life scales over 36 months. Three adverse drug reactions were regarded as both serious and unexpected: one patient had optic neuritis after the first bevacizumab infusion, a second patient had persistent erectile dysfunction, and a third patient died of a haemopericardium after receiving two bevacizumab infusions and was later identified to have had significant predisposing cardiovascular risk factors. INTERPRETATION Bevacizumab has promising tolerability. Longer follow-up is needed to identify an effect on the primary endpoint of overall survival at 5 years.


Annals of Oncology | 2014

Hepatic intra-arterial versus intravenous fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from uveal melanoma (EORTC 18021): a multicentric randomized trial

Serge Leyvraz; Sophie Piperno-Neumann; Stefan Suciu; Jean-François Baurain; Marcin Zdzienicki; Alessandro Testori; Ernest Marshall; Max E. Scheulen; Thomas Jouary; Sylvie Négrier; Jan B. Vermorken; Eckhart Kaempgen; Xavier Durando; Dirk Schadendorf; R. Karra Gurunath; Ulrich Keilholz

BACKGROUND In uveal melanoma (UM) with metastatic disease limited to the liver, the effect of an intrahepatic treatment on survival is unknown. We investigated prospectively the efficacy and toxicity of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) versus systemic (IV) fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from UM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IV or HIA fotemustine at 100 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 (and 22 in HIA arm only) as induction, and after a 5-week rest period every 3 weeks as maintenance. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS Accrual was stopped after randomization of 171 patients based on the results of a futility OS analysis. A total of 155 patients died and 16 were still alive [median follow-up 1.6 years (range 0.25-6 years)]. HIA did not improve OS (median 14.6 months) when compared with the IV arm (median 13.8 months), hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.50, log-rank P = 0.59. However, there was a significant benefit on PFS for HIA compared with IV with a median of 4.5 versus 3.5 months, respectively (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84, log-rank P = 0.002). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% in the HIA arm versus 8% in the IV arm. An improved RR was seen in the HIA (10.5%) compared with IV treatment (2.4%). In the IV arm, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (42.1%) and neutropenia (62.6%), compared with 21.2% and 28.7% in the HIA arm. The main grade ≥3 toxicity related to HIA was catheter complications (12%) and liver toxicity (4.5%) apart from two toxic deaths. CONCLUSION HIA treatment with fotemustine did not translate into an improved OS compared with IV treatment, despite better RR and PFS. Intrahepatic treatment should still be considered as experimental. EUDRACT NUMBER AND CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER 2004-002245-12 and NCT00110123.BACKGROUND In uveal melanoma (UM) with metastatic disease limited to the liver, the effect of an intrahepatic treatment on survival is unknown. We investigated prospectively the efficacy and toxicity of hepatic intra-arterial (HIA) versus systemic (IV) fotemustine in patients with liver metastases from UM. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomly assigned to receive either IV or HIA fotemustine at 100 mg/m2 on days 1, 8, 15 (and 22 in HIA arm only) as induction, and after a 5-week rest period every 3 weeks as maintenance. Primary end point was overall survival (OS). Response rate (RR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety were secondary end points. RESULTS Accrual was stopped after randomization of 171 patients based on the results of a futility OS analysis. A total of 155 patients died and 16 were still alive [median follow-up 1.6 years (range 0.25-6 years)]. HIA did not improve OS (median 14.6 months) when compared with the IV arm (median 13.8 months), hazard ratio (HR) 1.09; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.50, log-rank P = 0.59. However, there was a significant benefit on PFS for HIA compared with IV with a median of 4.5 versus 3.5 months, respectively (HR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.84, log-rank P = 0.002). The 1-year PFS rate was 24% in the HIA arm versus 8% in the IV arm. An improved RR was seen in the HIA (10.5%) compared with IV treatment (2.4%). In the IV arm, the most frequent grade ≥3 toxicity was thrombocytopenia (42.1%) and neutropenia (62.6%), compared with 21.2% and 28.7% in the HIA arm. The main grade ≥3 toxicity related to HIA was catheter complications (12%) and liver toxicity (4.5%) apart from two toxic deaths. CONCLUSION HIA treatment with fotemustine did not translate into an improved OS compared with IV treatment, despite better RR and PFS. Intrahepatic treatment should still be considered as experimental. EUDRACT NUMBER AND CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER 2004-002245-12 and NCT00110123.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2002

Randomized Study of Three Different Doses of Suramin Administered With a Fixed Dosing Schedule in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer: Results of Intergroup 0159, Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9480

Eric J. Small; Susan Halabi; Mark J. Ratain; Gary L. Rosner; Walter M. Stadler; David Palchak; Ernest Marshall; Randall Rago; Vera Hars; George Wilding; Daniel P. Petrylak; Nicholas J. Vogelzang

PURPOSE To test the hypothesis that the efficacy and toxicity of suramin in the treatment of patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer was dose dependent. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients were randomized with equal probability to receive low-, intermediate-, or high-dose suramin (total doses 3.192, 5.320, and 7.661 g/m(2), respectively). Overall survival, time to progression, and response rate (prostate-specific antigen [PSA] and objective) for each treatment arm were compared. Relationships between plasma suramin concentrations and response, toxicity, and survival were also evaluated. RESULTS Three hundred ninety patients were randomized. For the low-, intermediate-, and high-dose arms, the median survival time was 16, 14, and 13 months, respectively (P =.49). The objective response rate was 9%, 7%, and 15%, respectively (P =.10). PSA response rates were 24%, 28%, and 34%, respectively (P =.082). Landmark analyses of a 50% decline in PSA at 20 weeks showed a significant correlation with survival. There was a dose-response relationship between dose and toxicity. After adjusting for treatment arm, the measured suramin concentration was not associated with clinical response, PSA response, survival, or toxicity. CONCLUSION Although high-dose suramin was associated with higher objective and PSA response rates, these were not statistically significant. Overall, no dose-response relationship was observed for survival or progression-free survival, but toxicity was increased with the higher dose. Patients treated with the low-dose level experienced modest toxicity, making it the preferred arm on this study. The lack of a dose-response relationship and the toxicity profile observed raise questions regarding the utility of suramin, particularly high-dose suramin, as administered on this schedule.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2014

Phase II Pilot Study of Intravenous High-Dose Interferon With or Without Maintenance Treatment in Melanoma at High Risk of Recurrence

Miranda Payne; Katerina Argyropoulou; Paul Lorigan; James J. McAleer; David Farrugia; Neville Davidson; Charles Kelly; David Chao; Ernest Marshall; Cheng Han; Sandie Wellman; Mark R. Middleton

PURPOSE High-dose interferon alfa-2b (HDI) has emerged as a potentially effective adjuvant therapy in patients with resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. Evidence suggests it may be the early, very-high-dose part of the regimen that is critical. This pilot study sought to provide an early indication of whether the same effects can be achieved with the intravenous component of HDI alone and inform the feasibility and design of a phase III trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS Patients with stage 2B, 2C, 3B, and 3C melanoma were randomly assigned to receive interferon alfa-2b (IFN-α-2b) 20 MIU/m(2) intravenously (IV) daily 5 days per week for 4 weeks (arm A) versus the same regimen followed by IFN-α-2b 10 MIU/m(2) administered subcutaneously three times per week for 48 weeks (arm B) and observed for relapse-free survival (RFS) and overall survival. RESULTS Between 2003 and 2009, 194 patients were enrolled (arm A, 96; arm B, 98). After median follow-up of 39.5 months, RFS was 22.7 months (95% CI, 14.1 to 38.1 months) in arm A versus 33.3 months (95% CI, 18.2 to not reached) in arm B (P = .28). The proportions of patients free of relapse at 2 years were 50% and 54.1% (P = .569; hazard ratio, 0.89), respectively. Overall survival favored arm B (median, 41.5 months v not reached; P = .05). CONCLUSION Clinical outcomes were better in patients who had the longer regimen. Our results do not support either the use of a month of IV HDI alone in place of the year-long regimen or the initiation of a larger trial on this question.


European Journal of Cancer | 2011

Randomised phase II study of amrubicin as single agent or in combination with cisplatin versus cisplatin etoposide as first-line treatment in patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer – EORTC 08062

Mary O'Brien; Krzystof Konopa; Paul Lorigan; Lionel Bosquée; Ernest Marshall; F. Bustin; Sabine Margerit; Christian Fink; Jos A Stigt; Anne-Marie C. Dingemans; Baktiar Hasan; Jan P. van Meerbeeck; Paul Baas

PURPOSE The EORTC 08062 phase II randomised trial investigated the activity and safety of single agent amrubicin, cisplatin combined with amrubicin, and cisplatin combined with etoposide as first line treatment in extensive disease (ED) small cell lung cancer (SCLC). PATIENTS AND METHODS Eligible patients with previously untreated ED-SCLC, WHO performance status (PS) 0-2 and measurable disease were randomised to 3 weekly cycles of either amrubicin alone 45mg/m(2) i.v. day(d) 1-3 (A), cisplatin 60mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and amrubicin 40mg/m(2) i.v. d1-3 (PA), or cisplatin 75mg/m(2) i.v. d1 and etoposide 100mg/m(2) d1, d2-3 i.v./po (PE). The primary end-point was overall response rate (ORR) as assessed by local investigators (RECIST1.0 criteria). Secondary end-points were treatment toxicity, progression-free survival and overall survival. RESULTS The number of randomised/eligible patients who started treatment was 33/28 in A, 33/30 in PA and 33/30 in PE, respectively. Grade (G) ⩾3 haematological toxicity in A, PA and PE was neutropenia (73%, 73%, 69%); thrombocytopenia (17%, 15%, 9.4%), anaemia (10%, 15%, 3.1%) and febrile neutropenia (13%, 18%, 6%). Early deaths, including treatment related, occurred in 1, 3 and 3 patients in A, PA and PE arms, respectively. Cardiac toxicity did not differ among the 3 arms. Out of 88 eligible patients who started treatment, ORR was 61%, (90% 1-sided confidence intervals [CI] 47-100%), 77% (CI 64-100%) and 63%, (CI 50-100%) for A, PA and PE respectively. CONCLUSION All regimens were active and PA met the criteria for further investigation, despite slightly higher haematological toxicity.


Oncology | 2001

A Phase I Trial of a 5-Day Schedule of Intravenous Topotecan and Etoposide in Previously Untreated Patients with Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Penny O'neill; Peter I. Clark; David C. Smith; Ernest Marshall; Kate Hannigan; G. Ross

A phase I dose-escalation study was undertaken to determine the maximum tolerated dose of the intravenous combination of topotecan and etoposide in previously untreated patients with small-cell lung cancer. Nineteen patients were treated with 30-min infusions of topotecan (0.5 mg/m2/day for cohort 1; 0.75 mg/m2/day for cohort 2) followed by 1-hour infusions of a fixed daily dose of etoposide (60 mg/m2/day) for 5 consecutive days every 3 weeks. Patient cohort 1 (n = 7) received a total of 41 courses of chemotherapy. Grade 4 neutropenia occurred after 17% of the courses of therapy, and there was 1 episode of dose-limiting toxicity in this patient cohort. In patient cohort 2 (n = 12), a total of 64 courses of chemotherapy were administered. Grade 3 or 4 neutropenia occurred following 41 and 37% of the courses of therapy, respectively. Grade 3 thrombocytopenia occurred following 19% of the courses of therapy, and there were 3 episodes of dose-limiting toxicity in this patient cohort. There were no toxic deaths, and all nonhematologic toxicity (except hair loss) was ≤ grade 2. No further dose escalation was performed because of the degree of myelosuppression seen in patient cohort 2. All 19 patients were evaluable for response. Eighteen (95%) patients responded (14 partial responses and 4 complete responses) and the median survival was 10 months. This 5-day schedule of intravenous topotecan and etoposide administered sequentially on the same day is well tolerated, and the preliminary response rates were high in patients with previously untreated small-cell lung cancer.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013

Adjuvant bevacizumab as treatment for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: Preplanned interim results for the AVAST-M trial.

Philippa Corrie; Andrea Marshall; Madusha Goonewardena; Janet A. Dunn; Mark R. Middleton; Paul Nathan; Martin Gore; Neville Davidson; Steve Nicholson; Charles Kelly; Maria Marples; Sarah Danson; Ernest Marshall; Stephen Houston; Ruth Board; Ashita Waterston; Jenny Nobes; Mark Harries; Jim Barber; Paul Lorigan

LBA9000 Background: Bevacizumab (Bev) is a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) shown to improve survival in several advanced solid tumors. Multiple adjuvant trials are underway, but trials that have reported in colon and triple-negative breast cancer did not meet their primary end points. Since VEGF is a relevant target in melanoma, AVAST-M aimed to evaluate the role of Bev in patients (pts) with resected melanoma at high risk of recurrence. METHODS AVAST-M is a randomized phase III trial evaluating single agent Bev (7.5mg/kg IV 3 weekly for 1 year) as adjuvant therapy following resection of AJCC stage IIB, IIC, and III cutaneous melanoma compared to standard observation (Obs). 1,320 pts were required to detect 8% differences in 5-year overall survival (OS) rate from 40% to 48%; 85% power, 5% alpha level. Primary endpoint is OS; secondary endpoints are disease free interval (DFI), distant-metastasis free interval (DMFI), safety, and quality of life (QoL). An associated translational study is ongoing. Results of the first pre-planned interim analysis (agreed by the IDSMC) are reported here. RESULTS Between July 2007 and March 2012, 1,343 pts were recruited. 56% were male; median age 56 years (range 18-88 years), 16% were stage IIB, 11% IIC, 15% IIIA, 36% IIIB, 20% IIIC, and 2% unknown stage. Ulceration status of the primary melanoma was: 38% present, 45% absent, 17% unknown. At the time of the interim analysis, 286 (21%) patients had died. Median follow-up for survival was 25 months. Median duration of Bev treatment in 671 treated pts was 51 weeks (dose intensity 86%). Main outcomes are shown in the table. Grade 3/4 adverse events were experienced in 101 (15%) Bev pts and 36 (5%) Obs pts. CONCLUSIONS Interim analysis of this large, multicenter trial of melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence has shown that adjuvant Bev monotherapy is well tolerated and improved DFI. Longer follow-up is required to determine an impact on the primary endpoint of 5-year OS. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION 81261306. [Table: see text].


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2010

Randomized phase II study (EORTC 08062) of amrubicin as single agent or in combination with cisplatin versus etoposide-cisplatin as first-line treatment in patients (pts) with extensive disease small cell lung cancer (ED SCLC).

M. O'Brien; Jacek Jassem; Paul Lorigan; L. Bosquée; Ernest Marshall; F. Bustin; Jos A. Stigt; A. Dingemans; Baktiar Hasan; J. Van Meerbeeck


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2017

Adjuvant bevacizumab as treatment for melanoma patients at high risk of recurrence: Final results for the AVAST-M trial.

Philippa Corrie; Andrea Marshall; Paul Lorigan; Martin Gore; Saad Tahir; Guy Faust; Charles Kelly; Maria Marples; Sarah Danson; Ernest Marshall; Stephen Houston; Ruth Board; Ashita Waterston; Jenny Nobes; Mark Harries; Satish Kumar; Gemma Young; Emily Barker; Janet A. Dunn; Mark R. Middleton


American Journal of Ophthalmology | 2016

Validation of a Prognostic Staging for Metastatic Uveal Melanoma: A Collaborative Study of the European Ophthalmic Oncology Group

Tero Kivelä; Sophie Piperno-Neumann; Laurence Desjardins; Alexander Schmittel; Nikolaos E. Bechrakis; Edoardo Midena; Serge Leyvraz; Leonidas Zografos; Jean Daniel Grange; Guillaume Ract-Madoux; Ernest Marshall; Bertil Damato; Sebastian Eskelin

Collaboration


Dive into the Ernest Marshall's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Paul Lorigan

University of Manchester

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Sarah Danson

University of Sheffield

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Ashita Waterston

Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jenny Nobes

Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Maria Marples

St James's University Hospital

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge