Jenny Nobes
Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Jenny Nobes.
BJUI | 2012
Jenny Nobes; Stephen M. Langley; Tanya Klopper; David Russell-Jones; Robert Laing
Study Type – Therapy (RCT)
Lancet Oncology | 2014
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.
Melanoma Research | 2015
Saif S. Ahmad; Wendi Qian; Sarah Gabrielle Ellis; Elaine Mason; Muhammad A. Khattak; Avinash Gupta; Heather Shaw; Amy Quinton; Jarmila Kovarikova; Kiruthikah Thillai; Ankit Rao; Ruth Board; Jenny Nobes; Angus Dalgleish; Simon Grumett; Anthony Maraveyas; Sarah Danson; Toby Talbot; Mark Harries; Maria Marples; Ruth Plummer; Satish Kumar; Paul C. Nathan; Mark R. Middleton; James Larkin; Paul Lorigan; Matthew Wheater; Christian Ottensmeier; Pippa Corrie
Before licensing, ipilimumab was first made available to previously treated advanced melanoma patients through an expanded access programme (EAP) across Europe. We interrogated data from UK EAP patients to inform future clinical practice. Clinicians registered in the UK EAP provided anonymized patient data using a prespecified variable fields datasheet. Data collected were baseline patient characteristics, treatment delivered, toxicity, response, progression-free survival and overall survival (OS). Data were received for 193 previously treated metastatic melanoma patients, whose primary sites were cutaneous (82%), uveal (8%), mucosal (2%), acral (3%) or unknown (5%). At baseline, 88% of patients had a performance status (PS) of 0–1 and 20% had brain metastases. Of the patients, 53% received all four planned cycles of ipilimumab; the most common reason for stopping early was disease progression, including death from melanoma. Toxicity was recorded for 171 patients, 30% of whom experienced an adverse event of grade 3 or higher, the most common being diarrhoea (13%) and fatigue (9%). At a median follow-up of 23 months, the median progression-free survival and OS were 2.8 and 6.1 months, respectively; the 1-year and 2-year OS rates were 31 and 14.8%, respectively. The 2-year OS was significantly lower for patients with poorer PS (P<0.0001), low albumin concentrations (P<0.0001), the presence of brain metastases (P=0.007) and lactate dehydrogenase levels more than two times the upper limit of normal (P<0.0001) at baseline. These baseline characteristics are negative predictors of benefit from ipilimumab and should be taken into consideration before prescription.
BJUI | 2012
Amr M. Emara; E. Chadwick; Jenny Nobes; Ather M. Abdelbaky; Robert Laing; Stephen E.M. Langley
Study Type – Therapy (case series)
British Journal of Cancer | 2016
Michelle Chin I Lo; Anna Paterson; Jane Maraka; Richard Clark; Joseph Goodwill; Jenny Nobes; Jennifer Garioch; Marc Moncrieff; Ed Rytina; Laszlo Igali
Background:Determining the BRAF mutation status of patients with advanced metastatic melanoma is essential in order to assess patients’ eligibility for targeted BRAF inhibitor therapy. The aim of this study was to validate the utility of immunohistochemistry (IHC) to rapidly obtain the BRAF status in the UK cancer centre setting.Methods:All samples sent for molecular testing for detection of the BRAF mutation over a 26-month period were prospectively tested using the VE1 monoclonal antibody IHC stain.Results:Two-hundred and nineteen samples from 214 patients were identified. All patients were AJCC stage III/IV, except one. There was an overall 95.0% (208/219) concordance rate, with a sensitivity of 94.4% (84/89) and a specificity of 95.4% (124/130) when using genomic assays as the gold standard. Discordance resulted from the inability of the molecular technique to detect the V600E2 mutation and an inability of the IHC staining technique to detect non-V600E mutations. Molecular testing on smaller tumour deposits was also unreliable.Conclusions:IHC staining has good sensitivity and excellent specificity for BRAF V600E mutations. BRAF IHC can be incorporated into a BRAF mutation testing algorithm for UK cancer centres to as a feasible first-line assay and identify a subset of cases that require subsequent genomic testing. It has the additional major advantages of reduced cost and rapid turnaround time.
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2013
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].
British Journal of Cancer | 2016
Avinash Gupta; Corran Roberts; Finn Tysoe; Matthew Goff; Jenny Nobes; James Lester; Ernie Marshall; Carie Corner; Virginia Wolstenholme; Charles Kelly; Adelyn Wise; Linda Collins; Sharon Love; Martha Woodward; Amanda Salisbury; Mark R. Middleton
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.
Archive | 2013
Stephen E.M. Langley; Jenny Nobes
The metabolic syndrome is defined by a cluster of metabolic risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD), including insulin resistance, central obesity, and dyslipidemia. Its prevalence is increasing, coincident with the worldwide epidemics of obesity and type II diabetes. At the same time, the incidence of prostate cancer has increased, as identified by (or resulting from) prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. The use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in the treatment of prostate cancer has also become more common in recent years, and its use has been associated with development of the metabolic syndrome. The possibility that treatment of the disease with ADT could increase the risk of adverse cardiovascular consequences highlights the need for careful consideration of patients’ baseline health status and the use of strategies aimed at ameliorating outcomes in the long term. In this chapter, the possible interrelationships between prostate cancer and the metabolic syndrome are explored.
Radiotherapy and Oncology | 2008
Jenny Nobes; Robert Laing; Stephen M. Langley
Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2016
Paul Nathan; Piers Gaunt; Keith Wheatley; Sarah Bowden; Joshua S. Savage; Guy Faust; Jenny Nobes; Andrew Goodman; Diana Ritchie; Satish Kumar; Elizabeth R. Plummer; James Lester; Christian Ottensmeier; Vanessa Potter; Urmila Barthakur; Paul Lorigan; Ernie Marshall; James Larkin; Jeremy Marsden; Neil Steven