Richard Stephens

Preoperative radiotherapy versus selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy in patients with rectal cancer (MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG C016): a multicentre, randomised trial

Summary Background Preoperative or postoperative radiotherapy reduces the risk of local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer. However, improvements in surgery and histopathological assessment mean that the role of radiotherapy needs to be reassessed. We compared short-course preoperative radiotherapy versus initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy. Methods We undertook a randomised trial in 80 centres in four countries. 1350 patients with operable adenocarcinoma of the rectum were randomly assigned, by a minimisation procedure, to short-course preoperative radiotherapy (25 Gy in five fractions; n=674) or to initial surgery with selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy (45 Gy in 25 fractions with concurrent 5-fluorouracil) restricted to patients with involvement of the circumferential resection margin (n=676). The primary outcome measure was local recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. Findings At the time of analysis, which included all participants, 330 patients had died (157 preoperative radiotherapy group vs 173 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy), and median follow-up of surviving patients was 4 years. 99 patients had developed local recurrence (27 preoperative radiotherapy vs 72 selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We noted a reduction of 61% in the relative risk of local recurrence for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·27–0·58, p<0·0001), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6·2% (95% CI 5·3–7·1) (4·4% preoperative radiotherapy vs 10·6% selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy). We recorded a relative improvement in disease-free survival of 24% for patients receiving preoperative radiotherapy (HR 0·76, 95% CI 0·62–0·94, p=0·013), and an absolute difference at 3 years of 6·0% (95% CI 5·3–6·8) (77·5% vs 71·5%). Overall survival did not differ between the groups (HR 0·91, 95% CI 0·73–1·13, p=0·40). Interpretation Taken with results from other randomised trials, our findings provide convincing and consistent evidence that short-course preoperative radiotherapy is an effective treatment for patients with operable rectal cancer. Funding Medical Research Council (UK) and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Escalated-dose versus standard-dose conformal radiotherapy in prostate cancer: first results from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In men with localised prostate cancer, conformal radiotherapy (CFRT) could deliver higher doses of radiation than does standard-dose conventional radical external-beam radiotherapy, and could improve long-term efficacy, potentially at the cost of increased toxicity. We aimed to present the first analyses of effectiveness from the MRC RT01 randomised controlled trial. METHODS The MRC RT01 trial included 843 men with localised prostate cancer who were randomly assigned to standard-dose CFRT or escalated-dose CFRT, both administered with neoadjuvant androgen suppression. Primary endpoints were biochemical-progression-free survival (bPFS), freedom from local progression, metastases-free survival, overall survival, and late toxicity scores. The toxicity scores were measured with questionnaires for physicians and patients that included the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), the Late Effects on Normal Tissue: Subjective/Objective/Management (LENT/SOM) scales, and the University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA PCI) scales. Analysis was done by intention to treat. This trial is registered at the Current Controlled Trials website http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN47772397. FINDINGS Between January, 1998, and December, 2002, 843 men were randomly assigned to escalated-dose CFRT (n=422) or standard-dose CFRT (n=421). In the escalated group, the hazard ratio (HR) for bPFS was 0.67 (95% CI 0.53-0.85, p=0.0007). We noted 71% bPFS (108 cumulative events) and 60% bPFS (149 cumulative events) by 5 years in the escalated and standard groups, respectively. HR for clinical progression-free survival was 0.69 (0.47-1.02; p=0.064); local control was 0.65 (0.36-1.18; p=0.16); freedom from salvage androgen suppression was 0.78 (0.57-1.07; p=0.12); and metastases-free survival was 0.74 (0.47-1.18; p=0.21). HR for late bowel toxicity in the escalated group was 1.47 (1.12-1.92) according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale; 1.44 (1.16-1.80) according to the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales; and 1.28 (1.03-1.60) according to the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale. 33% of the escalated and 24% of the standard group reported late bowel toxicity within 5 years of starting treatment. HR for late bladder toxicity according to the RTOG (grade >/=2) scale was 1.36 (0.90-2.06), but this finding was not supported by the LENT/SOM (grade >/=2) scales (HR 1.07 [0.90-1.29]), nor the UCLA PCI (score >/=30) scale (HR 1.05 [0.81-1.36]). INTERPRETATION Escalated-dose CFRT with neoadjuvant androgen suppression seems clinically worthwhile in terms of bPFS, progression-free survival, and decreased use of salvage androgen suppression. This additional efficacy is offset by an increased incidence of longer term adverse events.

Effect of the plane of surgery achieved on local recurrence in patients with operable rectal cancer: a prospective study using data from the MRC CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 randomised clinical trial

Summary Background Local recurrence rates in operable rectal cancer are improved by radiotherapy (with or without chemotherapy) and surgical techniques such as total mesorectal excision. However, the contributions of surgery and radiotherapy to outcomes are unclear. We assessed the effect of the involvement of the circumferential resection margin and the plane of surgery achieved. Methods In this prospective study, the plane of surgery achieved and the involvement of the circumferential resection margin were assessed by local pathologists, using a standard pathological protocol in 1156 patients with operable rectal cancer from the CR07 and NCIC-CTG CO16 trial, which compared short-course (5 days) preoperative radiotherapy and selective postoperative chemoradiotherapy, between March, 1998, and August, 2005. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN 28785842. Findings 128 patients (11%) had involvement of the circumferential resection margin, and the plane of surgery achieved was classified as good (mesorectal) in 604 (52%), intermediate (intramesorectal) in 398 (34%), and poor (muscularis propria plane) in 154 (13%). We found that both a negative circumferential resection margin and a superior plane of surgery achieved were associated with low local recurrence rates. Hazard ratio (HR) was 0·32 (95% CI 0·16–0·63, p=0·0011) with 3-year local recurrence rates of 6% (5–8%) and 17% (10–26%) for patients who were negative and positive for circumferential resection margin, respectively. For plane of surgery achieved, HRs for mesorectal and intramesorectal groups compared with the muscularis propria group were 0·32 (0·16–0·64) and 0·48 (0·25–0·93), respectively. At 3 years, the estimated local recurrence rates were 4% (3–6%) for mesorectal, 7% (5–11%) for intramesorectal, and 13% (8–21%) for muscularis propria groups. The benefit of short-course preoperative radiotherapy did not differ in the three plane of surgery groups (p=0·30 for trend). Patients in the short-course preoperative radiotherapy group who had a resection in the mesorectal plane had a 3-year local recurrence rate of only 1%. Interpretation In rectal cancer, the plane of surgery achieved is an important prognostic factor for local recurrence. Short-course preoperative radiotherapy reduced the rate of local recurrence for all three plane of surgery groups, almost abolishing local recurrence in short-course preoperative radiotherapy patients who had a resection in the mesorectal plane. The plane of surgery achieved should therefore be assessed and reported routinely. Funding Medical Research Council (UK) and the National Cancer Institute of Canada.

Different strategies of sequential and combination chemotherapy for patients with poor prognosis advanced colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND In the non-curative setting, the sequence in which anticancer agents are used, singly or in combination, may be important if patients are to receive the maximum period of disease control with the minimum of adverse effects. We compared sequential and combination chemotherapy strategies in patients with unpretreated advanced or metastatic colorectal cancer, who were regarded as not potentially curable irrespective of response. METHODS We studied patients with advanced colorectal cancer, starting treatment with non-curative intent. 2135 unpretreated patients were randomly assigned to three treatment strategies in the ratio 1:1:1. Strategy A (control group) was single-agent fluorouracil (given with levofolinate over 48 h every 2 weeks) until failure, then single-agent irinotecan. Strategy B was fluorouracil until failure, then combination chemotherapy. Strategy C was combination chemotherapy from the outset. Within strategies B and C, patients were randomly assigned to receive, as the combination regimen, fluorouracil plus irinotecan (groups B-ir and C-ir) or fluorouracil plus oxaliplatin (groups B-ox and C-ox). The primary endpoint was overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN 79877428. RESULTS Median survival of patients allocated to control strategy A was 13.9 months. Median survival of each of the other groups was longer (B-ir 15.0, B-ox 15.2, C-ir 16.7, and C-ox 15.4 months). However, log-rank comparison of each group against control showed that only C-ir--the first-line combination strategy including irinotecan--satisfied the statistical test for superiority (p=0.01). Overall comparison of strategy B with strategy C was within the predetermined non-inferiority boundary of HR=1.18 or less (HR=1.06, 90% CI 0.97-1.17). INTERPRETATION Our data challenge the assumption that, in this non-curative setting, maximum tolerable treatment must necessarily be used first-line. The staged approach of initial single-agent treatment upgraded to combination when required is not worse than first-line combination, and is an alternative option for discussion with patients.

Chemotherapy in addition to supportive care improves survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of individual patient data from 16 randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE Since our individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis (MA) of supportive care and chemotherapy for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), published in 1995, many trials have been completed. An updated, IPD MA has been carried out to assess newer regimens and determine conclusively the effect of chemotherapy. METHODS Systematic searches for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were undertaken, followed by central collection, checking, and reanalysis of updated IPD. Results from RCTs were combined to calculate individual and pooled hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS Data were obtained from 2,714 patients from 16 RCTs. There were 1,293 deaths among 1,399 patients assigned supportive care and chemotherapy and 1,240 among 1,315 assigned supportive care alone. Results showed a significant benefit of chemotherapy (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.83; P <or= .0001), equivalent to a relative increase in survival of 23% or an absolute improvement in survival of 9% at 12 months, increasing survival from 20% to 29%. There was no clear evidence that this effect was influenced by the drugs used (P = .63) or whether they were used as single agents or in combination (P = .40). Despite changes in patient demographics, the effect of chemotherapy in recent trials did not differ from those included previously (P = .77). There was no clear evidence of a difference or trend in the relative effect of chemotherapy across patient subgroups. CONCLUSION This MA of chemotherapy in the supportive care setting demonstrates conclusively that chemotherapy improves overall survival in all patients with advanced NSCLC. Therefore, all patients who are fit enough and wish to receive chemotherapy should do so.

Adjuvant chemotherapy, with or without postoperative radiotherapy, in operable non-small-cell lung cancer: two meta-analyses of individual patient data

Summary Background Many randomised controlled trials have investigated the effect of adjuvant chemotherapy in operable non-small-cell lung cancer. We undertook two comprehensive systematic reviews and meta-analyses to establish the effects of adding adjuvant chemotherapy to surgery, or to surgery plus radiotherapy. Methods We included randomised trials, not confounded by additional therapeutic differences between the two groups and that started randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1965, which compared surgery plus adjuvant chemotherapy versus surgery alone, or surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus adjuvant radiotherapy. Updated individual patient data were collected, checked, and included in meta-analyses stratified by trial. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death by any cause. All analyses were by intention to treat. Findings The first meta-analysis of surgery plus chemotherapy versus surgery alone was based on 34 trial comparisons and 8447 patients (3323 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy after surgery (hazard ratio [HR] 0·86, 95% CI 0·81–0·92, p<0·0001), with an absolute increase in survival of 4% (95% CI 3–6) at 5 years (from 60% to 64%). The second meta-analysis of surgery plus radiotherapy and chemotherapy versus surgery plus radiotherapy was based on 13 trial comparisons and 2660 patients (1909 deaths). We recorded a benefit of adding chemotherapy to surgery plus radiotherapy (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·81–0·97, p=0·009), representing an absolute improvement in survival of 4% (95% CI 1–8) at 5 years (from 29% to 33%). In both meta-analyses we noted little variation in effect according to the type of chemotherapy, other trial characteristics, or patient subgroup. Interpretation The addition of adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery for patients with operable non-small-cell lung cancer improves survival, irrespective of whether chemotherapy was adjuvant to surgery alone or adjuvant to surgery plus radiotherapy. Funding UK Medical Research Council, Institut Gustave-Roussy, Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique (AOM 05 209), Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Sanofi-Aventis.

Intrahepatic arterial versus intravenous fluorouracil and folinic acid for colorectal cancer liver metastases: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND The liver is the most frequent site for metastases of colorectal cancer, which is the second largest contributor to cancer deaths in Europe. We did a randomised trial to compare an intrahepatic arterial (IHA) fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen with the standard intravenous de Gramont fluorouracil and folinic acid regimen for patients with adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum, with metastases confined to the liver. METHODS We randomly allocated 290 patients from 16 centres to receive either intravenous chemotherapy (folinic acid 200 mg/m2, fluorouracil bolus 400 mg2 and 22-h infusion 600 mg/m2, day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days), or IHA chemotherapy designed to be equitoxic (folinic acid 200 mg/m2, fluorouracil 400 mg/m2 over 15 mins and 22-h infusion 1600 mg/m2, day 1 and 2, repeated every 14 days). The primary endpoint was overall survival, and analysis was by intention to treat. FINDINGS 50 (37%) patients allocated to IHA did not start their treatment, and another 39 (29%) had to stop before receiving six cycles of treatment because of catheter failure. The IHA group received a median of two cycles (0-6), compared with 8.5 (6-12) for the intravenous group. 45 (51%) IHA patients who did not start or did not receive six cycles switched to intravenous treatment. In both groups, grade 3 or 4 toxicity was uncommon. Median overall survival was 14.7 months for the IHA group and 14.8 months for the intravenous group (hazard ratio 1.04 [95% CI 0.80-1.33], log-rank test p=0.79). Similarly, there was no significant difference in progression-free survival. INTERPRETATION Our results showed no evidence of an advantage in progression-free survival or overall survival for the IHA group; thus continued use of this regimen cannot be recommended outside of a clinical trial.

Preoperative chemotherapy in patients with resectable non-small cell lung cancer: results of the MRC LU22/NVALT 2/EORTC 08012 multicentre randomised trial and update of systematic review

BACKGROUND Although surgery offers the best chance of cure for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the overall 5-year survival rate is modest, and improvements are urgently needed. In the 1990s, much interest was generated from two small trials that reported striking results with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, and therefore our intergroup randomised trial was designed to investigate whether, in patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer of any stage, outcomes could be improved by giving platinum-based chemotherapy before surgery. METHODS Patients were randomised to receive either surgery alone (S), or three cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy followed by surgery (CT-S). Before randomisation, clinicians chose the chemotherapy that would be given from a list of six standard regimens. The primary outcome measure was overall survival, which was analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN25582437. RESULTS 519 patients were randomised (S: 261, CT-S: 258) from 70 centres in the UK, Netherlands, Germany, and Belgium. Most (61%) were clinical stage I, with 31% stage II, and 7% stage III. Neo-adjuvant chemotherapy was feasible (75% of patients received all three cycles of chemotherapy), resulted in a good response rate (49% [95% CI 43%-55%]) and down-staging in 31% (25%-37%) of patients, and did not alter the type or completeness of the surgery (lobectomy: S: 56%, CT-S: 60%, complete resection: S: 80%, CT-S: 82%). Post-operative complications were not increased in the CT-S group, and no impairment of quality of life was observed. However, there was no evidence of a benefit in terms of overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.31, p=0.86). Updating the systematic review by addition of the present result suggests a 12% relative survival benefit with the addition of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (1507 patients, HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.76-1.01, p=0.07), equivalent to an absolute improvement in survival of 5% at 5 years INTERPRETATION Although there was no evidence of a difference in overall survival with neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the result is statistically consistent with previous trials, and therefore adds considerable weight to the current evidence.

Rituximab versus a watch-and-wait approach in patients with advanced- stage, asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma: an open-label randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND Patients with advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma have conventionally undergone watchful waiting until disease progression. We assessed whether rituximab use could delay the need for chemotherapy or radiotherapy compared with watchful waiting and the effect of this strategy on quality of life (QoL). METHODS Asymptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (grades 1, 2, and 3a) were randomly assigned centrally (1:1:1), by the minimisation approach stratified by institution, grade, stage, and age, to watchful waiting, rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks (rituximab induction), or rituximab induction followed by a maintenance schedule of 12 further infusions given at 2-monthly intervals for 2 years (maintenance rituximab). On Sept 30, 2007, recruitment into the rituximab induction group was closed and the study was amended to a two-arm study. The primary endpoints were time to start of new treatment and QoL at month 7 (ie, 6 months after completion of rituximab induction). All randomly assigned patients were included in the analysis of time to start of new treatment on an intention-to-treat basis. The main study is now completed and is in long-term follow-up. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00112931. FINDINGS Between Oct 15, 2004, and March 25, 2009, 379 patients from 118 centres in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, and Poland were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or maintenance rituximab. 84 patients were recruited to the rituximab induction group before it was closed early. There was a significant difference in the time to start of new treatment, with 46% (95% CI 39-53) of patients in the watchful waiting group not needing treatment at 3 years compared with 88% (83-92) in the maintenance rituximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·21, 95% CI 0·14-0·31; p<0·0001). 78% (95% CI 69-87) of patients in the rituximab induction group did not need treatment at 3 years, which was significantly more than in the watchful waiting group (HR 0·35, 95% CI 0·22-0·56; p<0·0001), but no different compared with the maintenance rituximab group (0·75, 0·41-1·34; p=0·33). Compared with the watchful waiting group, patients in the maintenance rituximab group had significant improvements in the Mental Adjustment to Cancer scale score (p=0·0004), and Illness Coping Style score (p=0·0012) between baseline and month 7. Patients in the rituximab induction group did not show improvements in their QoL compared with the watchful waiting group. There were 18 serious adverse events reported in the rituximab groups (four in the rituximab induction group and 14 in the maintenance rituximab group), 12 of which were grade 3 or 4 (five infections, three allergic reactions, and four cases of neutropenia), all of which fully resolved. INTERPRETATION Rituximab monotherapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with asymptomatic, advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. FUNDING Cancer Research UK, Lymphoma Research Trust, Lymphoma Association, and Roche.

Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the U.K. Medical Research Council experience

Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.