Jessica Evans

Randomized Phase III Trial of Standard Therapy Plus Low Molecular Weight Heparin in Patients With Lung Cancer: FRAGMATIC Trial

PURPOSEnVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is common in cancer patients. Evidence has suggested that low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) might improve survival in patients with cancer by preventing both VTE and the progression of metastases. No trial in a single cancer type has been powered to demonstrate a clinically significant survival difference. The aim of this trial was to investigate this question in patients with lung cancer.nnnPATIENTS AND METHODSnWe conducted a multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to evaluate the addition of a primary prophylactic dose of LMWH for 24 weeks to standard treatment in patients with newly diagnosed lung cancer of any stage and histology. The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included metastasis-free survival, VTE-free survival, toxicity, and quality of life.nnnRESULTSnFor this trial, 2,202 patients were randomly assigned to the two treatment arms over 4 years. The trial did not reach its intended number of events for the primary analysis (2,047 deaths), and data were analyzed after 2,013 deaths after discussion with the independent data monitoring committee. There was no evidence of a difference in overall or metastasis-free survival between the two arms (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.10; P = .814; and HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.08; P = .864, respectively). There was a reduction in the risk of VTE from 9.7% to 5.5% (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.79; P = .001) in the LMWH arm and no difference in major bleeding events but evidence of an increase in the composite of major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding in the LMWH arm.nnnCONCLUSIONnLMWH did not improve overall survival in the patients with lung cancer in this trial. A significant reduction in VTE is associated with an increase in clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding. Strategies to target those at greatest risk of VTE are warranted.

PAN-EX: a pooled analysis of two trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by chemoradiotherapy in MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer

BACKGROUNDnEXPERT and EXPERT-C were phase II clinical trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) followed by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in high-risk, locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC).nnnDESIGNnWe pooled individual patient data from these trials. The primary objective was overall survival (OS) in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Prognostic factors were also analysed.nnnRESULTSnA total of 269 patients were included. Of these, 91.1% completed NACT, 88.1% completed CRT and 240 (89.2%) underwent curative surgery (R0/R1). After a median follow-up of 71.9 months, 5-year progression-free survival (PFS) and OS were 66.4% and 73.3%, respectively. In the group of R0/R1 resection patients, 5-year relapse-free survival (RFS) and OS were 71.6% and 77.2%, respectively, with local recurrence occurring in 5.5% and distant metastases in 20.6% of cases. Significant prognostic factors after multivariate analyses included age, tumour grade and MRI extramural venous invasion (mrEMVI) at baseline, MRI tumour regression grade (mrTRG) after CRT, ypT stage after surgery and adherence to study treatment. mrTRG after NACT was associated with PFS (P = 0.002) and OS (P = 0.018) and appeared to stratify patients based on the incremental benefit from sequential CRT. Among the outcome measures considered, in the subgroup of R0/R1 resection patients, ypT and ypStage had the highest predictive accuracy for RFS (concordance index: 0.6238 and 0.6252, respectively) and OS (concordance index: 0.6094 and 0.6132, respectively).nnnCONCLUSIONSnAdministering NACT before CRT could be a potential strategy for high-risk LARC. In this setting, mrTRG after CRT is an independent prognostic factor, while mrTRG after NACT should be tested as a parameter for treatment selection in trials of NACT ± CRT. ypT stage may be a valuable surrogate end point for future phase II trials investigating intensified neoadjuvant treatments in similar patient populations.

A feasibility study to inform the design of a randomised controlled trial to identify the most clinically effective and cost-effective length of Anticoagulation with Low-molecular-weight heparin In the treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (ALICAT)

BACKGROUNDnVenous thromboembolism is common in cancer patients and requires anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). Current data recommend LMWH for anticoagulation as far as 6 months, yet guidelines recommend LMWH beyond 6 months in patients who have ongoing or active cancer. This recommendation, based on expert consensus, has not been evaluated in a clinical study.nnnOBJECTIVESn(1) To identify the most clinically and cost-effective length of anticoagulation with LMWH in the treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT); (2) to identify practicalities of conducting a full randomised controlled trial (RCT) with regard to recruitment, retention and outcome measurement; and (3) to explore the barriers for progressing to a full RCT.nnnDESIGNnThe Anticoagulation with Low-molecular-weight heparin In the treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis (ALICAT) trial is a randomised, multicentre, feasibility mixed-methods study with three components: (1) a RCT comparing ongoing LMWH treatment for CAT with cessation of LMWH at 6 months treatment (current licensed practice) in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer, consulted in three clinical settings (haematology outpatients, oncology outpatients and primary care); (2) a nested qualitative study, including focus groups with clinicians to investigate attitudes for recruiting to the study and identify the challenges of progressing to a full RCT, and semistructured interviews with patients and relatives to explore their attitudes towards participating in the study, and potential barriers and concerns to participation; and (3) a UK-wide survey exercise to develop a classification and enumeration system for the CAT models and pathways of care.nnnSETTINGnA haematology outpatients department, an oncology outpatients department and primary care.nnnPARTICIPANTSnPatients with ongoing active or metastatic cancer who have received 6 months of LMWH for CAT.nnnINTERVENTIONSnOngoing LMWH treatment for CAT versus cessation of LMWH at 6 months treatment in patients with locally advanced or metastatic cancer.nnnMAIN OUTCOME MEASURESn(i) The number of eligible patients over 12 months; (ii) the number of recruited patients over 12 months (target recruitment rate of 30% of eligible patients); and (iii) the proportion of randomised participants with recurrent venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) during follow-up.nnnRESULTSnFollowing several delays in setting up the RCT component of the study, 5 out of 32 eligible patients consented to be randomised to the RCT suggesting progression to a full RCT was not feasible. Reasons for non-consenting were primarily based on a fixed preference for continuing or discontinuing treatment after 6 months of anticoagulation, and a fear of randomisation to their non-preferred option. Views were largely influenced by patients initial experience of CAT. Focus groups with clinicians revealed that they would be reticent to recruit to such a study as they had fixed views of best management despite the lack of evidence. Patient pathway modelling suggested that there is a broad heterogeneity of practice with respect to CAT management and co-ordination, with no consensus on which specialty should best manage such cases.nnnCONCLUSIONSnThe results of the RCT reflect recruitment from the oncology site only and provide no recruitment data from haematology centres. However, it is unlikely that these other sites would have access to more eligible patients. The management of cancer-associated thrombosis beyond 6 months will remain a clinical challenge. As it is unlikely that a prospective study will successfully recruit, other strategies to accrue relevant data are necessary. Currently the LONGHEVA (Long-term treatment for cancer patients with deep-venous thrombosis or pulmonary embolism) registry is in development to prospectively evaluate this important and common clinical scenario.nnnSTUDY REGISTRATIONnThis study is registered as clinical trials.gov number NCT01817257 and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 37913976.nnnFUNDING DETAILSnFunding for the ALICAT trial was provided by the Health Technology Assessment programme (10/145/01) in response to a themed funding call. The study was designed in accordance with the initial funding brief and feedback from the review process.

SUCCINCT: An open-label, single-arm, non-randomised, phase 2 trial of Gemcitabine and Cisplatin chemotherapy in combination with Sunitinib as first-line treatment for patients with advanced urothelial carcinoma.

Gemcitabine and cisplatin chemotherapy (GC regimen) represents a standard treatment for advanced urothelial carcinoma. We performed an open-label, single-arm, non-randomised, phase 2 trial evaluating the addition of sunitinib to standard GC chemotherapy (SGC regimen). Overall, 63 treatment-naïve participants were recruited and received up to six 21-d cycles of cisplatin 70 mg/m2 (intravenously [IV], day 1) and gemcitabine 1000 mg/m2 (IV, days 1 and 8) combined with sunitinib 37.5 mg (orally, days 2–15). Following review of toxicity after the first six patients, the sunitinib dose was reduced to 25 mg for all patients. Overall response rate was 64%, with response noted in 37 of 58 patients. At 6 mo, 30 of 58 assessable patients (52%; 90% confidence interval [CI], 40–63%) were progression free. Median overall survival was 12 mo (95% CI, 9–15) and was heavily influenced by Bajorin prognostic group. Grade 3–4 toxicities were predominantly haematologic and limited the deliverability of the triple SGC regimen. The trial did not meet its prespecified primary end point of >60% patients progression free at 6 mo. Cumulative myelosuppression led to treatment delays of gemcitabine and cisplatin and dose reduction and/or withdrawal of sunitinib in the majority of cases. The triple-drug combination was not well tolerated. Phase 3 evaluation of the triple SGC regimen in advanced transitional cell carcinoma is not recommended. Patient summary The addition of sunitinib to standard cisplatin and gemcitabine chemotherapy was poorly tolerated and did not improve outcomes in advanced urothelial carcinoma. Treatment delivery was limited by myelotoxicity.

Use of heparins in patients with cancer: individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised trials study protocol.

Introduction Parenteral anticoagulants may improve outcomes in patients with cancer by reducing risk of venous thromboembolic disease and through a direct antitumour effect. Study-level systematic reviews indicate a reduction in venous thromboembolism and provide moderate confidence that a small survival benefit exists. It remains unclear if any patient subgroups experience potential benefits. Methods and analysis First, we will perform a comprehensive systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library, hand search scientific conference abstracts and check clinical trials registries for randomised control trials of participants with solid cancers who are administered parenteral anticoagulants. We anticipate identifying at least 15 trials, exceeding 9000 participants. Second, we will perform an individual participant data meta-analysis to explore the magnitude of survival benefit and address whether subgroups of patients are more likely to benefit from parenteral anticoagulants. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle. For our primary outcome, mortality, we will use multivariable hierarchical models with patient-level variables as fixed effects and a categorical trial variable as a random effect. We will adjust analysis for important prognostic characteristics. To investigate whether intervention effects vary by predefined subgroups of patients, we will test interaction terms in the statistical model. Furthermore, we will develop a risk-prediction model for venous thromboembolism, with a focus on control patients of randomised trials. Ethics and dissemination Aside from maintaining participant anonymity, there are no major ethical concerns. This will be the first individual participant data meta-analysis addressing heparin use among patients with cancer and will directly influence recommendations in clinical practice guidelines. Major cancer guideline development organisations will use eventual results to inform their guideline recommendations. Several knowledge users will disseminate results through presentations at clinical rounds as well as national and international conferences. We will prepare an evidence brief and facilitate dialogue to engage policymakers and stakeholders in acting on findings. Trial registration number PROSPERO CRD42013003526.