Pippa Corrie

Guidelines for the management of gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine (including carcinoid) tumours (NETs)

These guidelines update previous guidance published in 2005. They have been revised by a group who are members of the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society with endorsement from the clinical committees of the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Society for Endocrinology, the Association of Surgeons of Great Britain and Ireland (and its Surgical Specialty Associations), the British Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology and others. The authorship represents leaders of the various groups in the UK and Ireland Neuroendocrine Tumour Society, but a large amount of work has been carried out by other specialists, many of whom attended a guidelines conference in May 2009. We have attempted to represent this work in the acknowledgements section. Over the past few years, there have been advances in the management of neuroendocrine tumours, which have included clearer characterisation, more specific and therapeutically relevant diagnosis, and improved treatments. However, there remain few randomised trials in the field and the disease is uncommon, hence all evidence must be considered weak in comparison with other more common cancers.

U.K. guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma

Summary  These guidelines for management of cutaneous melanoma present evidence‐based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines, and a brief overview of epidemiological aspects, diagnosis and investigation. To reflect the collaborative process for the U.K., they are subject to dual publication in the British Journal of Dermatology and the British Journal of Plastic Surgery.1

Revised U.K. guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010.

These guidelines reflect the best published data available at the time the report was prepared. Caution should be exercised in interpreting the data; the results of future studies may require alteration of the conclusions or recommendations in this report. It may be necessary or even desirable to depart from the guidelines in the interests of specific patients and special circumstances. Just as adherence to the guidelines may not constitute defence against a claim of negligence, so deviation from them should not necessarily be deemed negligent.

Gemcitabine alone or in combination with cisplatin in patients with advanced or metastatic cholangiocarcinomas or other biliary tract tumours: a multicentre randomised phase II study - The UK ABC-01 Study.

Background:We assessed the activity of gemcitabine (G) and cisplatin/gemcitabine (C/G) in patients with locally advanced (LA) or metastatic (M) (advanced) biliary cancers (ABC) for whom there is no standard chemotherapy.Methods:Patients, aged ⩾18 years, with pathologically confirmed ABC, Karnofsky performance (KP) ⩾60, and adequate haematological, hepatic and renal function were randomised to G 1000 mg m−2 on D1, 8, 15 q28d (Arm A) or C 25 mg m−2 followed by G 1000 mg m−2 D1, 8 q21d (Arm B) for up to 6 months or disease progression.Results:In total, 86 patients (A/B, n=44/42) were randomised between February 2002 and May 2004. Median age (64/62.5 years), KP, primary tumour site, earlier surgery, indwelling biliary stent and disease stage (LA: 25/38%) are comparable between treatment arms. Grade 3–4 toxicity included (A/B, % patients) anaemia (4.5/2.4), leukopenia (6.8/4.8), neutropenia (13.6/14.3), thrombocytopenia (9.1/11.9), lethargy (9.1/28.6), nausea/vomiting (0/7.1) and anorexia (2.3/4.8). Responses (WHO criteria, % of evaluable patients: A n=31 vs B n=36): no CRs; PR 22.6 vs 27.8%; SD 35.5 vs 47.1% for a tumour control rate (CR+PR+SD) of 58.0 vs 75.0%. The median TTP and 6-month progression-free survival (PFS) (the primary end point) were greater in the C/G arm (4.0 vs 8.0 months and 45.5 vs 57.1% in arms A and B, respectively).Conclusion:Both regimens seem active in ABC. C/G is associated with an improved tumour control rate, TTP and 6-month PFS. The study has been extended (ABC-02 study) and powered to determine the effect on overall survival and the quality of life.

Gemcitabine and capecitabine with or without telomerase peptide vaccine GV1001 in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer (TeloVac): an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. METHODS TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m(2), 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2-4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. FINDINGS The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4-12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1-8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4-7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97-1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3-9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85-1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ(2)2df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3-4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). INTERPRETATION Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. FUNDING Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

Revised UK guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma 2010

These guidelines for the management of cutaneous melanoma present an evidence-based guidance for treatment, with identification of the strength of evidence available at the time of preparation of the guidelines, and a brief overview of epidemiology, diagnosis, investigation, and follow-up.

Management of BRAF and MEK inhibitor toxicities in patients with metastatic melanoma

Following the discovery that nearly half of all cutaneous melanomas harbour a mutation in the BRAF gene, molecular targeted kinase inhibitors have been developed for the treatment of metastatic melanoma and have dramatically improved outcomes for those patients with BRAF mutant disease, achieving high levels of objective response and prolonging survival. Since 2011, the specific BRAF targeted agents, vemurafenib and dabrafenib, and the MEK inhibitor, trametinib, have been licensed for the treatment of patients with unresectable or metastatic BRAF mutant melanoma. As with other biological targeted agents, these drugs are associated with predictable patterns of adverse events. Proactive toxicity management is important to ensure maximum treatment benefit and avoid unnecessary treatment discontinuation. We review the most common and serious adverse events associated with BRAF targeted agents and suggest management algorithms to guide practitioners in using these drugs effectively in the clinic.

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

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.

Evolving treatment options for melanoma brain metastases.

Melanoma is a leading cause of lost productivity due to premature cancer mortality. Melanoma frequently spreads to the brain and is associated with rapid deterioration in quality and quantity of life. Until now, treatment options have been restricted to surgery and radiotherapy, although neither modality has been well studied in clinical trials. However, the new immune checkpoint inhibitors and molecularly targeted agents that have been introduced for treatment of metastatic melanoma are active against brain metastases and offer new opportunities to improve disease outcomes. New challenges arise, including how to integrate or sequence multiple treatment modalities, and current practice varies widely. In this Review, we summarise evidence for the treatment of melanoma brain metastases, and discuss the rationale and evidence for combination modalities, highlighting areas for future research.

Sorafenib and dacarbazine as first-line therapy for advanced melanoma: phase I and open-label phase II studies.

Method:The safety of oral sorafenib up to a maximum protocol-specified dose combined with dacarbazine in patients with metastatic, histologically confirmed melanoma was investigated in a phase I dose-escalation study and the activity of the combination was explored in an open-label phase II study.Results:In the phase I study, three patients were treated with sorafenib 200 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) plus 1000 mg m−2 dacarbazine on day 1 of a 21-day cycle and 15 patients had the sorafenib dose escalated to 400 mg b.i.d. without reaching the maximum tolerated dose of the combination. In the phase II study (n=83), the overall response rate was 12% (95% CI: 6, 21): one complete and nine partial, with median response duration of 46.7 weeks. Stable disease was the best response in 37%; median duration was 13.3 weeks. Median overall survival (OS) was 37.0 weeks (95% CI: 33.9, 46.0).Conclusion:Oral sorafenib combined with dacarbazine had acceptable toxicity and some antineoplastic activity against metastatic melanoma.