Sandy Beare

Ablation with Low-Dose Radioiodine and Thyrotropin Alfa in Thyroid Cancer

BACKGROUND It is not known whether low-dose radioiodine (1.1 GBq [30 mCi]) is as effective as high-dose radioiodine (3.7 GBq [100 mCi]) for treating patients with differentiated thyroid cancer or whether the effects of radioiodine (especially at a low dose) are influenced by using either recombinant human thyrotropin (thyrotropin alfa) or thyroid hormone withdrawal. METHODS At 29 centers in the United Kingdom, we conducted a randomized noninferiority trial comparing low-dose and high-dose radioiodine, each in combination with either thyrotropin alfa or thyroid hormone withdrawal before ablation. Patients (age range, 16 to 80 years) had tumor stage T1 to T3, with possible spread to nearby lymph nodes but without metastasis. End points were the rate of success of ablation at 6 to 9 months, adverse events, quality of life, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS A total of 438 patients underwent randomization; data could be analyzed for 421. Ablation success rates were 85.0% in the group receiving low-dose radioiodine versus 88.9% in the group receiving the high dose and 87.1% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 86.7% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal. All 95% confidence intervals for the differences were within ±10 percentage points, indicating noninferiority. Similar results were found for low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (84.3%) versus high-dose radioiodine plus thyroid hormone withdrawal (87.6%) or high-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa (90.2%). More patients in the high-dose group than in the low-dose group were hospitalized for at least 3 days (36.3% vs. 13.0%, P<0.001). The proportions of patients with adverse events were 21% in the low-dose group versus 33% in the high-dose group (P=0.007) and 23% in the thyrotropin alfa group versus 30% in the group undergoing thyroid hormone withdrawal (P=0.11). CONCLUSIONS Low-dose radioiodine plus thyrotropin alfa was as effective as high-dose radioiodine, with a lower rate of adverse events. (Funded by Cancer Research UK; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00415233.).

Cisplatin and gemcitabine for advanced biliary tract cancer: a meta-analysis of two randomised trials

BACKGROUND Two recent studies (ABC-02 [UK] and BT22 [Japan]) have demonstrated the superiority of cisplatin and gemcitabine (CisGem) chemotherapy over gemcitabine (Gem) alone for patients with pathologically proven advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC: cholangiocarcinoma, gallbladder and ampullary cancers). This pre-planned analysis evaluates the efficacy of CisGem with increased statistical power. PATIENTS AND METHODS We carried out a meta-analysis of individual patient-level data of these studies to establish the effect of CisGem versus Gem on progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and carried out exploratory subgroup analyses. RESULTS CisGem demonstrates a significant improvement in PFS [hazard ratio (HR)=0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.76, P<0.001] and OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.54-0.78, P<0.001) over Gem. This effect is most marked among patients with good performance status (PS 0-1): HR for PFS is 0.61 (95% CI 0.51-0.74), P<0.001 and OS HR=0.64 (95% CI 0.53-0.77), P<0.001. CisGem resulted in improved PFS and OS for intra- and extra-hepatic cholangiocarcinomas and gallbladder cancer. The treatment effect between UK and Japanese patients was consistent with respect to OS (HR=0.65, 95% CI 0.53-0.79 and 0.65, 95% CI 0.42-1.03, respectively); with similar OS in the combination arms (median 11.7 and 11.1 months, respectively). Subgroups least likely to benefit included patients with ampullary tumours and poor performance status (PS2). CONCLUSIONS CisGem is the standard of care for the first-line treatment of good-PS patients with advanced BTC regardless of ethnicity. Future studies should aim to enhance the effectiveness of this regimen in the first-line setting, establish the role of subsequent (second-line) therapy and assess the role of rationally developed molecular-targeted therapies.

Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Summary Background Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6–12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. Methods The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. Findings We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79–86), 84% (81–87), and 87% (84–89), respectively and was 72% (66–78), 59% (49–67), and 46% (37–55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81–88), 86% (82–88), and 87% (84–90), respectively, and was 75% (68–80), 61% (50–70), and 48% (36–58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. Interpretation Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment in previously untreated advanced unresectable or metastatic soft-tissue sarcomas (GeDDiS): a randomised controlled phase 3 trial

Summary Background For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Methods The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009–014907–29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. Findings Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7–29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5–54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5–54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6–30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1–20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99–1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. Interpretation Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Funding Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

Tumour- and treatment-related colostomy rates following mitomycin C or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus in the ACT II trial

BACKGROUND Squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) is highly sensitive to chemoradiation (CRT) which achieves good loco-regional control and preserves anal function. However, some patients require permanent stoma formation either as a result of surgery on relapse, poor anal function or treatment-related symptoms. Our aim was to determine patient, tumour and treatment-related colostomy rates following CRT and maintenance chemotherapy in the ACT II trial. PATIENTS AND METHODS The ACT II trial recruited 940 patients comparing 5FU-based CRT using cisplatin (CisP) or mitomycin C (MMC) with or without additional maintenance chemotherapy. We investigated the association between colostomy-free survival (CFS) and progression-free survival (PFS) with age, gender, T-stage, N-stage, treatment and baseline haemoglobin. RESULTS The median follow-up was 5.1 years (n = 884 evaluable/940); tumour site canal (84%), margin (14%); stage T1/T2 (52%), T3/T4 (46%); N+ (32%), N0 (62%). Twenty out of 118 (17%) colostomies fashioned before CRT were reversed within 8 months. One hundred and twelve patients had a post-treatment colostomy due to persistent disease (98) or morbidity (14). Fifty-two per cent (61/118) of all pre-treatment colostomies were never reversed. The 5-year CFS rates were 68% MMC/Maint, 70% CisP/Maint, 68% MMC/No-maint and 65% CisP/No-maint. CRT with CisP did not improve CFS when compared with MMC (hazard ratio: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.82-1.31, P = 0.74). The 5-year CFS rates were higher for T1/T2 (79%) than T3/T4 (54%) tumours and higher for node-negative (72%) than node-positive (60%) patients. Significant predictors of CFS were gender, T-stage and haemoglobin, while treatment factors had no impact on outcome. Similar associations were found between PFS and tumour/treatment-related factors. CONCLUSIONS The majority (52%) of pre-treatment colostomies were never reversed. Neither CRT with 5FU/CisP nor maintenance chemotherapy impacted on CFS. The low risk of colostomy for late effects (1.7%) is likely to be associated with the modest total radiotherapy dose. The predictive factors for CFS were T-stage, gender and baseline haemoglobin. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN 26715889.

Capturing Data on Colostomy Formation in Anal Cancer

TO THE EDITOR: The authors of the recent article by Peiffert et al are to be congratulated because randomized trials in anal cancer are difficult toperform.Theirprimaryendpointwascolostomy-freesurvival, which was defined as a definitive colostomy for progression, relapse, or complicationatthetimeofanalysis,andtheydidnotincludepatientswho had undergone a colostomy that was eventually reversed. Therefore, we are surprised that, in Figure 3, which depicts actuarial colostomy-free survival, the y-axis starts at 100%. Were there no patients who had an initial colostomy for symptoms in whom this was never reversed? Current conventional descriptions of colostomy in anal cancer trials fail to capture the data accurately. Colostomy-free survival or cumulative colostomy rates are frequently reported, or the rate of colostomies at specific time-points is reported. However, several series have noted that, among patients who receive a pretreatment colostomy, despite subsequent local disease control, failure to reverse the colostomy is almost invariable. However, although this could initially be considered cause specific, the definition would seem inaccurate in patients who achieve long-term control. This difficult issue was highlighted in a recent correspondence. A baseline pretreatment colostomy that was that was fashioned because of symptoms before radiotherapy was considered by Sunesen et al as a tumor-related colostomy. It is vital to capture this information if we are to compare different treatments. The RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group) 98-11 study described persistent or recurrent anal carcinoma as being responsible for 62 of 80 patients having a colostomy (78%), but 16 patients (20%) were coded as treatment-related in patients with no evidence of disease (treatment complications or sphincter dysfunction as a result of a previous tumor invasion or destruction), and two patients were coded as having both reasons. The recent classification of Sunesen et al should be extended to include separately a third group of patients (5% to 12% of all patients, depending on the stage) who require a baseline colostomy pretreatment in anal cancer for incontinence, fistula formation, and/or pain on defecation. We recommend the following definitions: (1) a colostomy is classified as a tumor-related colostomy if the patient had evidence of anal cancer at the time of the surgery either for a defunctioning stoma to allay symptoms or a salvage APER (which clearly will not be reversed); (2) a colostomy is classified as a treatment-related colostomy if it was performed either during chemoradiotherapy or after the completion of chemoradiotherapy, and the patient had no histologic evidence of cancer; or (3) a colostomy is classified as a baseline pretreatment-colostomy if the colostomy was created before chemoradiotherapy because of a fistula or intolerable symptoms from the tumor. This may be reversed if the patient achieves local control, although in practice this is unlikely. If the tumor never goes into remission and the patient never achieves a clinical CR, this colostomy should be considered tumor-related at the 6-month time point (Fig 1). A common language according to these definitions would give greater clarity in the future.

Preoperative chemoradiation with capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab in rectal cancer: significance of pre-treatment and post-resection RAS mutations

Background:The influence of EGFR pathway mutations on cetuximab-containing rectal cancer preoperative chemoradiation (CRT) is uncertain.Methods:In a prospective phase II trial (EXCITE), patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-defined non-metastatic rectal adenocarinoma threatening/involving the surgical resection plane received pelvic radiotherapy with concurrent capecitabine, irinotecan and cetuximab. Resection was recommended 8 weeks later. The primary endpoint was histopathologically clear (R0) resection margin. Pre-planned retrospective DNA pyrosequencing (PS) and next generation sequencing (NGS) of KRAS, NRAS, PIK3CA and BRAF was performed on the pre-treatment biopsy and resected specimen.Results:Eighty-two patients were recruited and 76 underwent surgery, with R0 resection in 67 (82%, 90%CI: 73–88%) (four patients with clinical complete response declined surgery). Twenty–four patients (30%) had an excellent clinical or pathological response (ECPR). Using NGS 24 (46%) of 52 matched biopsies/resections were discrepant: ten patients (19%) gained 13 new resection mutations compared to biopsy (12 KRAS, one PIK3CA) and 18 (35%) lost 22 mutations (15 KRAS, 7 PIK3CA). Tumours only ever testing RAS wild-type had significantly greater ECPR than tumours with either biopsy or resection RAS mutations (14/29 [48%] vs 10/51 [20%], P=0.008), with a trend towards increased overall survival (HR 0.23, 95% CI 0.05–1.03, P=0.055).Conclusions:This regimen was feasible and the primary study endpoint was met. For the first time using pre-operative rectal CRT, emergence of clinically important new resection mutations is described, likely reflecting intratumoural heterogeneity manifesting either as treatment-driven selective clonal expansion or a geographical biopsy sampling miss.

PHOTOSTENT-02: porfimer sodium photodynamic therapy plus stenting versus stenting alone in patients with locally advanced or metastatic biliary tract cancer

Background Endobiliary stenting is standard practice for palliation of obstructive jaundice due to biliary tract cancer (BTC). Photodynamic therapy (PDT) may also improve biliary drainage and previous small studies suggested survival benefit. Aims To assess the difference in outcome between patients with BTC undergoing palliative stenting plus PDT versus stenting alone. Methods 92 patients with confirmed locally advanced or metastatic BTC, ECOG performance status 0–3 and adequate biliary drainage were randomised (46 per group) to receive porfimer sodium PDT plus stenting or stenting alone. The primary end point was overall survival (OS). Toxicity and progression-free survival (PFS) were secondary end points. Treatment arms were well balanced for baseline factors and prior therapy. Results No significant differences in grade 3–4 toxicities and no grade 3–4 adverse events due to PDT were observed. Thirteen (28%) PDT patients and 24 (52%) stent alone patients received subsequent palliative chemotherapy. After a median follow-up of 8.4 months, OS and PFS were worse in patients receiving PDT compared with stent alone group (OS median 6.2 vs 9.8 months (HR 1.56, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.43, p=0.048) and PFS median 3.4 vs 4.3 months (HR 1.43, 95% CI: 0.93 to 2.18, p=0.10), respectively). Conclusion In patients with locally advanced or metastatic BTC, PDT was associated with worse outcome than stenting alone, explained only in part by the differences in chemotherapy treatments. We conclude that optimal stenting remains the treatment of choice for malignant biliary obstruction and the use of PDT for this indication cannot be recommended outside of clinical trials. Trial registration number ISRCTN 87712758; EudraCT 2005-001173-96; UKCRN ID: 1461.

BACCHUS: A randomised non-comparative phase II study of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC)

Background Chemoradiation (CRT) or short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) are standard treatments for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC). We evaluated the efficacy/safety of two neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) regimens as an alternative prior to total mesorectal excision (TME). Methods/design This multi-centre, phase II trial in patients with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) defined high-risk LARC (>cT3b, cN2+ or extramural venous invasion) randomised patients (1:1) to FOLFOX + Bevacizumab (Arm 1) or FOLFOXIRI + bevacizumab (Arm 2) every 14 days for 6 cycles prior to surgery. Patients were withdrawn if positron emission tomography (PET) standardised uptake value (SUV) after 3 cycles failed to decrease by >30% or increased compared to baseline. Primary endpoint was pathological complete response rate (pCR). Secondary endpoints included adverse events (AE) and toxicity. Neoadjuvant rectal (NAR) scores based on “T” and “N” downstaging were calculated. Findings Twenty patients aged 18–75 years were randomised. The trial stopped early because of poor accrual. Seventeen patients completed all 6 cycles of NACT. One stopped due to myocardial infarction, 1 poor response on PET (both received CRT) and 1 committed suicide. 11 patients had G3 AE, 1 G4 AE (neutropenia), and 1 G5 (suicide). pCR (the primary endpoint) was 0/10 for Arm 1 and 2/10 for Arm 2 i.e. 2/20 (10%) overall. Median NAR score was 14·9 with 5 (28%), 7 (39%), and 6 (33%) having low, intermediate, or high scores. Surgical morbidity was acceptable (1/18 wound infection, no anastomotic leak/pelvic sepsis/fistulae). The 24-month progression-free survival rate was 75% (95% CI: 60%–85%). Interpretation The primary endpoint (pCR rate) was not met. However, FOLFOXIRI and bevacizumab achieved promising pCR rates, low NAR scores and was well-tolerated. This regimen is suitable for testing as the novel arm against current standards of SCRT and/or CRT in a future trial.

Circulating biomarkers during treatment in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer receiving cediranib in the UK ABC-03 trial

BackgroundAdvanced biliary tract cancer (ABC) has a poor prognosis. Cediranib, in addition to cisplatin/gemcitabine [CisGem], improved the response rate, but did not improve the progression-free survival (PFS) in the ABC-03 study. Minimally invasive biomarkers predictive of cediranib benefit may improve patient outcomes.MethodsChanges in 15 circulating plasma angiogenesis or inflammatory-related proteins and cytokeratin-18 (CK18), measured at baseline and during therapy until disease progression, were correlated with overall survival (OS) using time-varying covariate Cox models (TVC).ResultsSamples were available from n = 117/124 (94%) patients. Circulating Ang1&2, FGFb, PDGFbb, VEGFC, VEGFR1 and CK18 decreased as a result of the therapy, independent of treatment with cediranib. Circulating VEGFR2 and Tie2 were preferentially reduced by cediranib. Patients with increasing levels of VEGFA at any time had a worse PFS and OS; this detrimental effect was attenuated in patients receiving cediranib. TVC analysis revealed CK18 and VEGFR2 increases correlated with poorer OS in all patients (P < 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively).ConclusionsRising circulating VEGFA levels in patients with ABC, treated with CisGem, are associated with worse PFS and OS, not seen in patients receiving cediranib. Rising levels of markers of tumour burden (CK18) and potential resistance (VEGFR2) are associated with worse outcomes and warrant validation.