Henry C Kitchener

Efficacy of human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by oncogenic HPV types (PATRICIA): final analysis of a double-blind, randomised study in young women

BACKGROUND The human papillomavirus (HPV)-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine was immunogenic, generally well tolerated, and effective against HPV-16 or HPV-18 infections, and associated precancerous lesions in an event-triggered interim analysis of the phase III randomised, double-blind, controlled PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults (PATRICIA). We now assess the vaccine efficacy in the final event-driven analysis. METHODS Women (15-25 years) were vaccinated at months 0, 1, and 6. Analyses were done in the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (ATP-E; vaccine, n=8093; control, n=8069), total vaccinated cohort (TVC, included all women receiving at least one vaccine dose, regardless of their baseline HPV status; represents the general population, including those who are sexually active; vaccine, n=9319; control, n=9325), and TVC-naive (no evidence of oncogenic HPV infection at baseline; represents women before sexual debut; vaccine, n=5822; control, n=5819). The primary endpoint was to assess vaccine efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia 2+ (CIN2+) that was associated with HPV-16 or HPV-18 in women who were seronegative at baseline, and DNA negative at baseline and month 6 for the corresponding type (ATP-E). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS Mean follow-up was 34.9 months (SD 6.4) after the third dose. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16/18 was 92.9% (96.1% CI 79.9-98.3) in the primary analysis and 98.1% (88.4-100) in an analysis in which probable causality to HPV type was assigned in lesions infected with multiple oncogenic types (ATP-E cohort). Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ irrespective of HPV DNA in lesions was 30.4% (16.4-42.1) in the TVC and 70.2% (54.7-80.9) in the TVC-naive. Corresponding values against CIN3+ were 33.4% (9.1-51.5) in the TVC and 87.0% (54.9-97.7) in the TVC-naive. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with 12 non-vaccine oncogenic types was 54.0% (34.0-68.4; ATP-E). Individual cross-protection against CIN2+ associated with HPV-31, HPV-33, and HPV-45 was seen in the TVC. INTERPRETATION The HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine showed high efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV-16/18 and non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types and substantial overall effect in cohorts that are relevant to universal mass vaccination and catch-up programmes. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

Efficacy of a prophylactic adjuvanted bivalent L1 virus-like-particle vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 in young women: an interim analysis of a phase III double-blind, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND The aim of this interim analysis of a large, international phase III study was to assess the efficacy of an AS04 adjuvanted L1 virus-like-particle prophylactic candidate vaccine against infection with human papillomavirus (HPV) types 16 and 18 in young women. METHODS 18,644 women aged 15-25 years were randomly assigned to receive either HPV16/18 vaccine (n=9319) or hepatitis A vaccine (n=9325) at 0, 1, and 6 months. Of these women, 88 were excluded because of high-grade cytology and 31 for missing cytology results. Thus, 9258 women received the HPV16/18 vaccine and 9267 received the control vaccine in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy, which included women who had prevalent oncogenic HPV infections, often with several HPV types, as well as low-grade cytological abnormalities at study entry and who received at least one vaccine dose. We assessed cervical cytology and subsequent biopsy for 14 oncogenic HPV types by PCR. The primary endpoint--vaccine efficacy against cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) 2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18--was assessed in women who were seronegative and DNA negative for the corresponding vaccine type at baseline (month 0) and allowed inclusion of lesions with several oncogenic HPV types. This interim event-defined analysis was triggered when at least 23 cases of CIN2+ with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA in the lesion were detected in the total vaccinated cohort for efficacy. Analyses were done on a modified intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the US National Institutes of Health clinical trial registry, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS Mean length of follow-up for women in the primary analysis for efficacy at the time of the interim analysis was 14.8 (SD 4.9) months. Two cases of CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 DNA were seen in the HPV16/18 vaccine group; 21 were recorded in the control group. Of the 23 cases, 14 (two in the HPV16/18 vaccine group, 12 in the control group) contained several oncogenic HPV types. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ containing HPV16/18 DNA was 90.4% (97.9% CI 53.4-99.3; p<0.0001). No clinically meaningful differences were noted in safety outcomes between the study groups. INTERPRETATION The adjuvanted HPV16/18 vaccine showed prophylactic efficacy against CIN2+ associated with HPV16 or HPV18 and thus could be used for cervical cancer prevention.

Efficacy of systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC trial): a randomised study.

BACKGROUND Hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO) is the standard surgery for stage I endometrial cancer. Systematic pelvic lymphadenectomy has been used to establish whether there is extra-uterine disease and as a therapeutic procedure; however, randomised trials need to be done to assess therapeutic efficacy. The ASTEC surgical trial investigated whether pelvic lymphadenectomy could improve survival of women with endometrial cancer. METHODS From 85 centres in four countries, 1408 women with histologically proven endometrial carcinoma thought preoperatively to be confined to the corpus were randomly allocated by a minimisation method to standard surgery (hysterectomy and BSO, peritoneal washings, and palpation of para-aortic nodes; n=704) or standard surgery plus lymphadenectomy (n=704). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. To control for postsurgical treatment, women with early-stage disease at intermediate or high risk of recurrence were randomised (independent of lymph-node status) into the ASTEC radiotherapy trial. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 16571884. FINDINGS After a median follow-up of 37 months (IQR 24-58), 191 women (88 standard surgery group, 103 lymphadenectomy group) had died, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 1.16 (95% CI 0.87-1.54; p=0.31) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year overall survival of 1% (95% CI -4 to 6). 251 women died or had recurrent disease (107 standard surgery group, 144 lymphadenectomy group), with an HR of 1.35 (1.06-1.73; p=0.017) in favour of standard surgery and an absolute difference in 5-year recurrence-free survival of 6% (1-12). With adjustment for baseline characteristics and pathology details, the HR for overall survival was 1.04 (0.74-1.45; p=0.83) and for recurrence-free survival was 1.25 (0.93-1.66; p=0.14). INTERPRETATION Our results show no evidence of benefit in terms of overall or recurrence-free survival for pelvic lymphadenectomy in women with early endometrial cancer. Pelvic lymphadenectomy cannot be recommended as routine procedure for therapeutic purposes outside of clinical trials.

Management of women who test positive for high-risk types of human papillomavirus: the HART study

BACKGROUND Certain types of human papillomavirus (HPV) are the primary cause of almost all cervical cancers. HPV testing of cervical smears is more sensitive but less specific than cytology for detecting high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN2+). HPV testing as a primary screening approach requires efficient management of HPV-positive women with negative or borderline cytology. We aimed to compare the detection rate and positive predictive values of HPV assay with cytology and to determine the best management strategy for HPV-positive women. METHODS We did a multicentre screening study of 11085 women aged 30-60 years. Women with borderline cytology and women positive for high-risk HPV with negative cytology were randomised to immediate colposcopy or to surveillance by repeat HPV testing, cytology, and colposcopy at 12 months. FINDINGS HPV testing was more sensitive than borderline or worse cytology (97.1% vs 76.6%, p=0.002) but less specific (93.3% vs 95.8%, p<0.0001) for detecting CIN2+. Of 825 randomised women, surveillance at 12 months was as effective as immediate colposcopy. In women positive for HPV at baseline, who had surveillance, 73 (45%) of 164 women with negative cytology and eight (35%) of 23 women with borderline cytology were HPV negative at 6-12 months. No CIN2+ was found in these women, nor in women with an initial negative HPV test with borderline (n=211) or mild (32) cytology. INTERPRETATION HPV testing could be used for primary screening in women older than 30 years, with cytology used to triage HPV-positive women. HPV-positive women with normal or borderline cytology (about 6% of screened women) could be managed by repeat testing after 12 months. This approach could potentially improve detection rates of CIN2+ without increasing the colposcopy referral rate.

Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in the treatment of endometrial cancer (MRC ASTEC and NCIC CTG EN.5 randomised trials): pooled trial results, systematic review, and meta-analysis

Summary Background Early endometrial cancer with low-risk pathological features can be successfully treated by surgery alone. External beam radiotherapy added to surgery has been investigated in several small trials, which have mainly included women at intermediate risk of recurrence. In these trials, postoperative radiotherapy has been shown to reduce the risk of isolated local recurrence but there is no evidence that it improves recurrence-free or overall survival. We report the findings from the ASTEC and EN.5 trials, which investigated adjuvant external beam radiotherapy in women with early-stage disease and pathological features suggestive of intermediate or high risk of recurrence and death from endometrial cancer. Methods Between July, 1996, and March, 2005, 905 (789 ASTEC, 116 EN.5) women with intermediate-risk or high-risk early-stage disease from 112 centres in seven countries (UK, Canada, Poland, Norway, New Zealand, Australia, USA) were randomly assigned after surgery to observation (453) or to external beam radiotherapy (452). A target dose of 40–46 Gy in 20–25 daily fractions to the pelvis, treating five times a week, was specified. Primary outcome measure was overall survival, and all analyses were by intention to treat. These trials were registered ISRCTN 16571884 (ASTEC) and NCT 00002807 (EN.5). Findings After a median follow-up of 58 months, 135 women (68 observation, 67 external beam radiotherapy) had died. There was no evidence that overall survival with external beam radiotherapy was better than observation, hazard ratio 1·05 (95% CI 0·75–1·48; p=0·77). 5-year overall survival was 84% in both groups. Combining data from ASTEC and EN.5 in a meta-analysis of trials confirmed that there was no benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio 1·04; 95% CI 0·84–1·29) and can reliably exclude an absolute benefit of external beam radiotherapy at 5 years of more than 3%. With brachytherapy used in 53% of women in ASTEC/EN.5, the local recurrence rate in the observation group at 5 years was 6·1%. Interpretation Adjuvant external beam radiotherapy cannot be recommended as part of routine treatment for women with intermediate-risk or high-risk early-stage endometrial cancer with the aim of improving survival. The absolute benefit of external beam radiotherapy in preventing isolated local recurrence is small and is not without toxicity. Funding Medical Research Council, National Cancer Research Network, National Cancer Institute of Canada, with funds from the Canadian Cancer Society.

Cross-protective efficacy of HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against cervical infection and precancer caused by non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types: 4-year end-of-study analysis of the randomised, double-blind PATRICIA trial

BACKGROUND We evaluated the efficacy of the human papillomavirus HPV-16/18 AS04-adjuvanted vaccine against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis after 4 years of follow-up in PATRICIA (PApilloma TRIal against Cancer In young Adults). METHODS Healthy women aged 15-25 years with no more than six lifetime sexual partners were included in PATRICIA irrespective of their baseline HPV DNA status, HPV-16 or HPV-18 serostatus, or cytology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to HPV-16/18 vaccine or a control hepatitis A vaccine, via an internet-based central randomisation system using a minimisation algorithm to account for age ranges and study sites. The study was double-blind. The primary endpoint of PATRICIA has been reported previously; the present analysis evaluates cross-protective vaccine efficacy against non-vaccine oncogenic HPV types in the end-of-study analysis. Analyses were done for three cohorts: the according-to-protocol cohort for efficacy (ATP-E; vaccine n=8067, control n=8047), total vaccinated HPV-naive cohort (TVC-naive; no evidence of infection with 14 oncogenic HPV types at baseline, approximating young adolescents before sexual debut; vaccine n=5824, control n=5820), and the total vaccinated cohort (TVC; all women who received at least one vaccine dose, approximating catch-up populations that include sexually active women; vaccine n=9319, control=9325). Vaccine efficacy was evaluated against 6-month persistent infection, cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or greater (CIN2+) associated with 12 non-vaccine HPV types (individually or as composite endpoints), and CIN3+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00122681. FINDINGS Consistent vaccine efficacy against persistent infection and CIN2+ (with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection) was seen across cohorts for HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51. In the most conservative analysis of vaccine efficacy against CIN2+, where all cases co-infected with HPV-16/18 were removed, vaccine efficacy was noted for HPV-33 in all cohorts, and for HPV-31 in the ATP-E and TVC-naive. Vaccine efficacy against CIN2+ associated with the composite of 12 non-vaccine HPV types (31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, 59, 66, and 68), with or without HPV-16/18 co-infection, was 46·8% (95% CI 30·7-59·4) in the ATP-E, 56·2% (37·2-69·9) in the TVC-naive, and 34·2% (20·4-45·8) in the TVC. Corresponding values for CIN3+ were 73·8% (48·3-87·9), 91·4% (65·0-99·0), and 47·5% (22·8-64·8). INTERPRETATION Data from the end-of-study analysis of PATRICIA show cross-protective efficacy of the HPV-16/18 vaccine against four oncogenic non-vaccine HPV types-HPV-33, HPV-31, HPV-45, and HPV-51-in different trial cohorts representing diverse groups of women. FUNDING GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals.

HPV testing in combination with liquid-based cytology in primary cervical screening (ARTISTIC): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) DNA is reportedly more sensitive than cytology for the detection of high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). The effectiveness of HPV testing in primary cervical screening was assessed in the ARTISTIC trial, which was done over two screening rounds approximately 3 years apart (2001-03 and 2004-07) by comparing liquid-based cytology (LBC) combined with HPV testing against LBC alone. METHODS Women aged 20-64 years who were undergoing routine screening as part of the English National Health Service Cervical Screening Programme in Greater Manchester were randomly assigned (between July, 2001, and September, 2003) in a ratio of 3:1 to either combined LBC and HPV testing in which the results were revealed and acted on, or to combined LBC and HPV testing where the HPV result was concealed from the patient and investigator. The primary outcome was the detection rate of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in the second screening round, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN25417821. FINDINGS There were 24 510 eligible women at entry (18 386 in the revealed group, 6124 in the concealed group). In the first round of screening 233 women (1.27%) in the revealed group had CIN3+, compared with 80 (1.31%) women in the concealed group (odds ratio [OR] 0.97, 95% CI 0.75-1.25; p>0.2). There was an unexpectedly large drop in the proportion of women with CIN3+ between the first and second rounds of screening in both groups, at 0.25% (29 of 11 676) in the revealed group and 0.47% (18 of 3866 women) in the concealed group (OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.96; p=0.042). For both rounds combined, the proportion of women with CIN3+ were 1.51% (revealed) and 1.77% (concealed) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.67-1.08; p>0.2). INTERPRETATION LBC combined with HPV testing resulted in a significantly lower detection rate of CIN3+ in the second round of screening compared with LBC screening alone, but the effect was small. Over the two screening rounds combined, co-testing did not detect a higher rate of CIN3+ or CIN2+ than LBC alone. Potential changes in screening methodology should be assessed over at least two screening rounds. FUNDING National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Primary chemotherapy versus primary surgery for newly diagnosed advanced ovarian cancer (CHORUS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND The international standard of care for women with suspected advanced ovarian cancer is surgical debulking followed by platinum-based chemotherapy. We aimed to establish whether use of platinum-based primary chemotherapy followed by delayed surgery was an effective and safe alternative treatment regimen. METHODS In this phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial (CHORUS) undertaken in 87 hospitals in the UK and New Zealand, we enrolled women with suspected stage III or IV ovarian cancer. We randomly assigned women (1:1) either to undergo primary surgery followed by six cycles of chemotherapy, or to three cycles of primary chemotherapy, then surgery, followed by three more cycles of completion chemotherapy. Each 3-week cycle consisted of carboplatin AUC5 or AUC6 plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), or an alternative carboplatin combination regimen, or carboplatin monotherapy. We did the random assignment by use of a minimisation method with a random element, and stratified participants according to the randomising centre, largest radiological tumour size, clinical stage, and prespecified chemotherapy regimen. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Primary analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. To establish non-inferiority, the upper bound of a one-sided 90% CI for the hazard ratio (HR) had to be less than 1.18. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN74802813, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS Between March 1, 2004, and Aug 30, 2010, we randomly assigned 552 women to treatment. Of the 550 women who were eligible, 276 were assigned to primary surgery and 274 to primary chemotherapy. All were included in the intention-to-treat analysis; 251 assigned to primary surgery and 253 to primary chemotherapy were included in the per-protocol analysis. As of May 31, 2014, 451 deaths had occurred: 231 in the primary-surgery group versus 220 in the primary-chemotherapy group. Median overall survival was 22.6 months in the primary-surgery group versus 24.1 months in primary chemotherapy. The HR for death was 0.87 in favour of primary chemotherapy, with the upper bound of the one-sided 90% CI 0.98 (95% CI 0.72-1.05). Grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse events and deaths within 28 days after surgery were more common in the primary-surgery group than in the primary-chemotherapy group (60 [24%] of 252 women vs 30 [14%] of 209, p=0.0007, and 14 women [6%] vs 1 woman [<1%], p=0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 postoperative adverse event was haemorrhage in both groups (8 women [3%] in the primary-surgery group vs 14 [6%] in the primary-chemotherapy group). 110 (49%) of 225 women receiving primary surgery and 102 (40%) of 253 receiving primary chemotherapy had a grade 3 or 4 chemotherapy related toxic effect (p=0.0654), mostly uncomplicated neutropenia (20% and 16%, respectively). One fatal toxic effect, neutropenic sepsis, occurred in the primary-chemotherapy group. INTERPRETATION In women with stage III or IV ovarian cancer, survival with primary chemotherapy is non-inferior to primary surgery. In this study population, giving primary chemotherapy before surgery is an acceptable standard of care for women with advanced ovarian cancer. FUNDING Cancer Research UK and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Consensus Statement on Clinical Trials in Ovarian Cancer Report From the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference

2010 Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) consensus statement on clinical trials in ovarian cancer. This report provides the outcomes from the Fourth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference.

HPV testing in routine cervical screening: cross sectional data from the ARTISTIC trial

To evaluate the effectiveness of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing in primary cervical screening. This was a cross-sectional study from the recruitment phase of a prospective randomised trial. Women were screened for HPV in addition to routine cervical cytology testing. Greater Manchester, attendees at routine NHS Cervical Screening Programme. In all, 24 510 women aged 20–64 screened with liquid-based cytology (LBC) and HPV testing at entry. HPV testing in primary cervical screening. Type-specific HPV prevalence rates are presented in relation to age as well as cytological and histological findings at entry. In all, 24 510 women had adequate cytology and HPV results. Cytology results at entry were: 87% normal, 11% borderline or mild, 1.1% moderate and 0.6% severe dyskaryosis or worse. Prevalence of HPV decreased sharply with age, from 40% at age 20–24 to 12% at 35–39 and 7% or less above age 50. It increased with cytological grade, from 10% of normal cytology and 31% of borderline to 70% mild, 86% moderate, and 96% of severe dyskaryosis or worse. HPV 16 or HPV 18 accounted for 64% of infections in women with severe or worse cytology, and one or both were found in 61% of women with severe dyskaryosis but in only 2.2% of those with normal cytology. The majority of young women in Greater Manchester have been infected with a high-risk HPV by the age of 30. HPV testing is practicable as a primary routine screening test, but in women aged under 30 years, this would lead to a substantial increase in retesting and referral rates. HPV 16 and HPV 18 are more predictive of underlying disease, but other HPV types account for 30% of high-grade disease.