MErCuRIC1: A Phase I study of MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 with cMET inhibitor crizotinib in RASMT and RASWT (with aberrant c-MET) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients.

Background: RAS is mutated (RASMT) in ~55% of mCRC, and phase III studies have shown that patients harbouring RAS mutations do not benefit from anti-EGFR MoAbs. In addition, ~50% of RAS Wild Type (RASWT) will not benefit from the addition of an EGFR MoAb to standard chemotherapy. Hence, novel treatment strategies are urgently needed for RASMT and > 50% of RASWT mCRC patients. c-MET is overexpressed in ~50-60%, amplified in ~2-3% and mutated in ~3-5% of mCRC. Recent preclinical studies have shown that c-MET is an important mediator of resistance to MEK inhibitors (i) in RASMT mCRC, and that combined MEKi/METi resulted in synergistic reduction in tumour growth in RASMT xenograft models (1). A number of recent studies have highlighted the role of c-MET in mediating primary/secondary resistance to anti-EGFR MoAbs in mCRC, suggesting that patient with RASWT tumours with aberrant c-MET (RASWT/c-MET+) may benefit from anti-c-MET targeted therapies (2). These preclinical data supported the further clinical evaluation of combined MEKi/METi treatment in RASMT and RASWT CRC patients with aberrant c-MET signalling (overexpression, amplification or mutation; RASWT/c-MET+). Methods: MErCuRIC1 is a phase I combination study of METi crizotinib with MEKi PD-0325901. The dose escalation phase, utilizing a rolling six design, recruits 12-24 patients with advanced solid tumours and aims to assess safety/toxicity of combination, recommended phase II (RPII) dose, pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) (pERK1/2 in PBMC and tumour; soluble c-MET). In the dose expansion phase an additional 30-42 RASMT and RASWT/c-MET mCRC patients with biopsiable disease will be treated at the RPII dose to further evaluate safety, PK, PD and treatment response. In the dose expansion phase additional biopsy and blood samples will be obtained to define mechanisms of response/resistance to crizotinib/PD-0325901 therapy. Enrolment into the dose escalation phase began in December 2014 with cohort 1 still ongoing. EudraCT registry number: 2014-000463-40. (1) Van Schaeybroeck S et al. Cell Reports 2014;7(6):1940-55; (2) Bardelli A et al. Cancer Discov 2013;3(6):658-73. Clinical trial information: 2014-000463-40.

Clinical and testing protocols for the analysis of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations in East Asian patients with non-small cell lung cancer:a combined clinical-molecular pathological approach

Several randomized phase III studies in advanced stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) confirmed the superior response rate and progression-free survival of using epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor as first-line therapy compared with chemotherapy in patients with activating EGFR mutations. Despite the need for EGFR mutation tests to guide first-line therapy in East Asian NSCLC, there are no current standard clinical and testing protocols.

Tiotropium Respimat® in cystic fibrosis: Phase 3 and Pooled phase 2/3 randomized trials

Background: Tiotropium Respimat® improved lung function in a phase 2 trial in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF). We investigated its efficacy and safety in a phase 3 trial, including a pre-specified pooled analysis of the phase 2 and 3 trials. 

Methods: 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of tiotropium Respimat® 5. μg once daily in patients with CF (N = 463). 

Results: Co-primary efficacy endpoints showed no statistical difference between tiotropium and placebo: percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1s (FEV₁) area under the curve from 0-4h (AUC_0-4h) (95% CI): 1.64% (0.27,3.55; p=0.092); percent-predicted trough FEV₁ (95% CI) 1.40% (0.50,3.30; p=0.15). Adverse events were similar between groups. Pooled phase 2/3 trial results showed a treatment difference in favor of tiotropium: percent-predicted FEV₁ AUC_0-4h (95% CI): 2.62% (1.34,3.90). 

Conclusion: Tiotropium was well tolerated in patients with CF; lung function improvements compared with placebo were not statistically significant in the phase 3 trial. Clinical trials: These studies are registered with clinical trial identifier numbers NCT00737100 and NCT01179347NCT00737100NCT01179347. These studies are also registered with the EudraCT number: 2008-001156-43 and 2010-019802-17.

Clinical Application of Poly(ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitors in High-Grade Serous Ovarian Cancer

: High-grade serous ovarian cancer is characterized by genomic instability, with one half of all tumors displaying defects in the important DNA repair pathway of homologous recombination. Given the action of poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors in targeting tumors with deficiencies in this repair pathway by loss of BRCA1/2, ovarian tumors could be an attractive population for clinical application of this therapy. PARP inhibitors have moved into clinical practice in the past few years, with approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) within the past 2 years. The U.S. FDA approval of olaparib applies to fourth line treatment in germline BRCA-mutant ovarian cancer, and European EMA approval to olaparib maintenance in both germline and somatic BRCA-mutant platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. In order to widen the ovarian cancer patient population that would benefit from PARP inhibitors, predictive biomarkers based on a clear understanding of the mechanism of action are required. Additionally, a better understanding of the toxicity profile is needed if PARP inhibitors are to be used in the curative, rather than the palliative, setting. We reviewed the development of PARP inhibitors in phase I-III clinical trials, including combination trials of PARP inhibitors and chemotherapy/antiangiogenics, the approval for these agents, the mechanisms of resistance, and the outstanding issues, including the development of biomarkers and the rate of long-term hematologic toxicities with these agents.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor olaparib has recently received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), with a second agent (rucaparib) likely to be approved in the near future. However, the patient population with potential benefit from PARP inhibitors is likely wider than that of germline BRCA mutation-associated disease, and biomarkers are in development to enable the selection of patients with the potential for clinical benefit from these agents. Questions remain regarding the toxicities of PARP inhibitors, limiting the use of these agents in the prophylactic or adjuvant setting until more information is available. The indications for olaparib as indicated by the FDA and EMA are reviewed.

Association Between Results of a Gene Expression Signature Assay and Recurrence-Free Interval in Patients With Stage II Colon Cancer in Cancer and Leukemia Group B 9581 (Alliance)

PURPOSE: Conventional staging methods are inadequate to identify patients with stage II colon cancer (CC) who are at high risk of recurrence after surgery with curative intent. ColDx is a gene expression, microarray-based assay shown to be independently prognostic for recurrence-free interval (RFI) and overall survival in CC. The objective of this study was to further validate ColDx using formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded specimens collected as part of the Alliance phase III trial, C9581.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: C9581 evaluated edrecolomab versus observation in patients with stage II CC and reported no survival benefit. Under an initial case-cohort sampling design, a randomly selected subcohort (RS) comprised 514 patients from 901 eligible patients with available tissue. Forty-nine additional patients with recurrence events were included in the analysis. Final analysis comprised 393 patients: 360 RS (58 events) and 33 non-RS events. Risk status was determined for each patient by ColDx. The Self-Prentice method was used to test the association between the resulting ColDx risk score and RFI adjusting for standard prognostic variables.

RESULTS: Fifty-five percent of patients (216 of 393) were classified as high risk. After adjustment for prognostic variables that included mismatch repair (MMR) deficiency, ColDx high-risk patients exhibited significantly worse RFI (multivariable hazard ratio, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; P < .01). Age and MMR status were marginally significant. RFI at 5 years for patients classified as high risk was 82% (95% CI, 79% to 85%), compared with 91% (95% CI, 89% to 93%) for patients classified as low risk.

CONCLUSION: ColDx is associated with RFI in the C9581 subsample in the presence of other prognostic factors, including MMR deficiency. ColDx could be incorporated with the traditional clinical markers of risk to refine patient prognosis.

A randomised controlled trial of calcium channel blockade (CCB) with Amlodipine For the treatment oF subcortical ischaEmic vasCular demenTia (AFFECT): study protocol

BACKGROUND: Vascular dementia is the second most common cause of dementia affecting over seven million people worldwide, yet there are no licensed treatments. There is an urgent need for a clinical trial in this patient group. Subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia is the most common variant of vascular dementia. This randomised trial will investigate whether use of calcium channel blockade with amlodipine, a commonly used agent, can provide the first evidence-based pharmacological treatment for subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia.

METHODS/DESIGN: This is a randomised controlled trial of calcium channel blockade with Amlodipine For the treatment oF subcortical ischaEmic vasCular demenTia (AFFECT) to test the hypothesis that treatment with amlodipine can improve outcomes for these patients in a phase IIb, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 12 months in the Vascular Dementia Assessment Scale cognitive subscale (VADAS-cog). Secondary outcomes include cognitive function, executive function, clinical global impression of change, change in blood pressure, quantitative evaluation of lesion accrual based on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, non-cognitive dementia symptoms, care-giver burden and care-giver health-related quality of life, cost-effectiveness and institutionalisation. A total of 588 patients will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either amlodipine or placebo, recruited from sites across the UK and enrolled in the trial for 104 weeks.

DISCUSSION: There are no treatments licensed for vascular dementia. The most common subtype is subcortical ischaemic vascular dementia (SIVD). This study is designed to investigate whether amlodipine can produce benefits compared to placebo in established SIVD. It is estimated that the numbers of people with VaD and SIVD will increase globally in the future and the results of this study should inform important treatment decisions.

Cabazitaxel for Hormone-Relapsed Metastatic Prostate Cancer Previously Treated With a Docetaxel-Containing Regimen: An Evidence Review Group Perspective of a NICE Single Technology Appraisal

As part of its single technology appraisal (STA) process, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) invited the company that manufactures cabazitaxel (Jevtana(®), Sanofi, UK) to submit evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of cabazitaxel for treatment of patients with metastatic hormone-relapsed prostate cancer (mHRPC) previously treated with a docetaxel-containing regimen. The School of Health and Related Research Technology Appraisal Group at the University of Sheffield was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG). The ERG produced a critical review of the evidence for the clinical and cost effectiveness of the technology based upon the company's submission to NICE. Clinical evidence for cabazitaxel was derived from a multinational randomised open-label phase III trial (TROPIC) of cabazitaxel plus prednisone or prednisolone compared with mitoxantrone plus prednisone or prednisolone, which was assumed to represent best supportive care. The NICE final scope identified a further three comparators: abiraterone in combination with prednisone or prednisolone; enzalutamide; and radium-223 dichloride for the subgroup of people with bone metastasis only (no visceral metastasis). The company did not consider radium-223 dichloride to be a relevant comparator. Neither abiraterone nor enzalutamide has been directly compared in a trial with cabazitaxel. Instead, clinical evidence was synthesised within a network meta-analysis (NMA). Results from TROPIC showed that cabazitaxel was associated with a statistically significant improvement in both overall survival and progression-free survival compared with mitoxantrone. Results from a random-effects NMA, as conducted by the company and updated by the ERG, indicated that there was no statistically significant difference between the three active treatments for both overall survival and progression-free survival. Utility data were not collected as part of the TROPIC trial, and were instead taken from the company's UK early access programme. Evidence on resource use came from the TROPIC trial, supplemented by both expert clinical opinion and a UK clinical audit. List prices were used for mitoxantrone, abiraterone and enzalutamide as directed by NICE, although commercial in-confidence patient-access schemes (PASs) are in place for abiraterone and enzalutamide. The confidential PAS was used for cabazitaxel. Sequential use of the advanced hormonal therapies (abiraterone and enzalutamide) does not usually occur in clinical practice in the UK. Hence, cabazitaxel could be used within two pathways of care: either when an advanced hormonal therapy was used pre-docetaxel, or when one was used post-docetaxel. The company believed that the former pathway was more likely to represent standard National Health Service (NHS) practice, and so their main comparison was between cabazitaxel and mitoxantrone, with effectiveness data from the TROPIC trial. Results of the company's updated cost-effectiveness analysis estimated a probabilistic incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £45,982 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained, which the committee considered to be the most plausible value for this comparison. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be both cheaper and more effective than abiraterone. Cabazitaxel was estimated to be cheaper but less effective than enzalutamide, resulting in an ICER of £212,038 per QALY gained for enzalutamide compared with cabazitaxel. The ERG noted that radium-223 is a valid comparator (for the indicated sub-group), and that it may be used in either of the two care pathways. Hence, its exclusion leads to uncertainty in the cost-effectiveness results. In addition, the company assumed that there would be no drug wastage when cabazitaxel was used, with cost-effectiveness results being sensitive to this assumption: modelling drug wastage increased the ICER comparing cabazitaxel with mitoxantrone to over £55,000 per QALY gained. The ERG updated the company's NMA and used a random effects model to perform a fully incremental analysis between cabazitaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide and best supportive care using PASs for abiraterone and enzalutamide. Results showed that both cabazitaxel and abiraterone were extendedly dominated by the combination of best supportive care and enzalutamide. Preliminary guidance from the committee, which included wastage of cabazitaxel, did not recommend its use. In response, the company provided both a further discount to the confidential PAS for cabazitaxel and confirmation from NHS England that it is appropriate to supply and purchase cabazitaxel in pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags, which would remove the cost of drug wastage. As a result, the committee recommended use of cabazitaxel as a treatment option in people with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1 whose disease had progressed during or after treatment with at least 225 mg/m(2) of docetaxel, as long as it was provided at the discount agreed in the PAS and purchased in either pre-prepared intravenous-infusion bags or in vials at a reduced price to reflect the average per-patient drug wastage.

Randomized controlled trial of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for acute low back pain.

Study Design. A multi-center assessor-blinded randomized clinical trial was conducted. Objectives. To investigate the relative effectiveness of interferential therapy and manipulative therapy for patients with acute low back pain when used as sole treatments and in combination. Summary of Background Data. Both manipulative therapy and interferential therapy are commonly used treatments for low back pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of manipulative therapy is available only for the short term. There is no evidence for interferential therapy and no study has investigated the effectiveness of interferential therapy combined with manipulative therapy. Methods. Consenting subjects (n=240) were randomly assigned to receive a copy of the Back Book and either manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80) or combined manipulative therapy and interferential therapy (CT; n=80). Follow-up outcome questionnaires were posted at discharge, 6 and 12 months. Results. The groups were balanced at baseline for low back pain and demographic characteristics. All interventions were found to significantly reduce functional disability and pain and increase quality of life at discharge and to maintain these improvements at 6 and 12 months. No significant differences were found between groups for reported LBP recurrence, work absenteeism, medication consumption, exercise participation and healthcare use at 12 months. Conclusions. For acute low back pain, interferential therapy whether used in isolation or in combination with manipulative therapy was as effective as manipulative therapy alone (in addition to the Back Book).

Ascertainment of cause-specific mortality in COPD - operations of the TORCH clinical endpoint Committee

Background: TORCH (Towards a Revolution in COPD Health) is an international multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of inhaled fluticasone propionate/salmeterol combination treatment and its monotherapy components for maintenance treatment of moderately to severely impaired patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary outcome is all-cause mortality. Cause-specific mortality and deaths related to COPD are additional outcome measures, but systematic methods for ascertainment of these outcomes have not previously been described. Methods: A Clinical Endpoint Committee (CEC) was tasked with categorising the cause of death and the relationship of deaths to COPD in a systematic, unbiased and independent manner. The key elements of the operation of the committee were the use of predefined principles of operation and definitions of cause of death and COPD-relatedness; the independent review of cases by all members with development of a consensus opinion; and a substantial infrastructure to collect medical information. Results: 911 deaths were reviewed and consensus was reached in all. Cause-specific mortality was: cardiovascular 27%, respiratory 35%, cancer 21%, other 10% and unknown 8%. 40% of deaths were definitely or probably related to COPD. Adjudications were identical in 83% of blindly re-adjudicated cases ( = 0.80). COPD-relatedness was reproduced 84% of the time ( = 0.73). The CEC adjudication was equivalent to the primary cause of death recorded by the site investigator in 52% of cases. Conclusion: A CEC can provide standardised, reliable and informative adjudication of COPD mortality that provides information which frequently differs from data collected from assessment by site investigators.

Accuracy of Death Certificates in COPD: Analysis from the TORCH Trial

The Towards a Revolution in COPD Health (TORCH) trial was an international clinical trial of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients where cause of death was assigned by an independent committee. Comparison of death certificate data and adjudicated cause of death allows a unique opportunity to determine death certificate accuracy and frequency of COPD listing on death certificates of COPD patients. In this analysis, the authors determine the concordance between adjudicated cause of death and primary and secondary cause of death from death certificates. In 317 (80%) of informative deaths, the primary or secondary cause of death from certificates agreed with adjudicated cause of death. Only 229 (58%) of death certificates in these COPD patients listed COPD on the certificate. COPD was not listed on the death certificate in 21% of deaths adjudicated to be caused by COPD exacerbation. Compared with pulmonary causes, the listing of COPD on certificates occurred with less frequency than cardiovascular, cancer and other categories of death. The combined primary and secondary listing on death certificates has good concordance with actual cause of death. COPD is under-reported on death certificates, and this under-reporting is more frequent when the primary cause of death is not pulmonary.

Malignant pleural mesothelioma: current treatments and emerging drugs

Background: Malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is an uncommon disease whose incidence is increasing worldwide over the past 30 years. Surgical resection and radiotherapy represent the standard treatment in patient with resectable MPM. Chemotherapy is also necessary to reduce incidence of distant metastases, but the optimal setting of treatment (neoadjuvant, adjuvant and intrapleural) is not clarified. For the patients with unresectable MPM, the combination cisplatin and pemetrexed or ralitrexed is the standard treatment as supported by a Phase III study. Better understanding of molecular pathways involved in MPM has enabled inclusion of new drugs targeted against pathways responsible for proliferation, cell survival and angiogenesis. Objective: This review discusses the current treatment option, the specific signal pathways activated in MPM and the novel agents under evaluation in clinical trials. Methods: We use for this article abstracts, papers, oral presentations from ASCO and the website http://www.clinical-trials.gov. Results/conclusion: This review summarizes the activity of chemotherapy and of new agents under evaluation in clinical trials. The better understanding of molecular pathways activated in MPM will hopefully provide new therapeutic options for these patients in the future.

Computer simulating a trial of a load-bearing implant: example of an intramedullary prosthesis

Computational modelling is becoming ever more important for obtaining regulatory approval for new medical devices. An accepted approach is to infer performance in a population from an analysis conducted for an idealised or ‘average’ patient; we present here a method for predicting the performance of an orthopaedic implant when released into a population—effectively simulating a clinical trial. Specifically we hypothesise that an analysis based on a method for predicting the performance in a population will lead to different conclusions than an analysis based on an idealised or ‘average’ patient. To test this hypothesis we use a finite element model of an intramedullary implant in a bone whose size and remodelling activity is different for each individual in the population. We compare the performance of a low Young’s modulus implant (View the MathML source) to one with a higher Young’s modulus (200 GPa). Cyclic loading is applied and failure is assumed when the migration of the implant relative to the bone exceeds a threshold magnitude. The analysis for an idealised of ‘average’ patient predicts that the lower modulus device survives longer whereas the analysis simulating a clinical trial predicts no statistically-significant tendency (p=0.77) for the low modulus device to perform better. It is concluded that population-based simulations of implant performance–simulating a clinical trial–present a very valuable opportunity for more realistic computational pre-clinical testing of medical devices.

Eyes open to stem cells: safety trial may pave the way for cell therapy to treat retinal disease in patients

A clinical trial using human embryonic stem cell (hESC) therapy for an inherited retinal degenerative disease is about to commence. The Advanced Cell Technology (ACT) trial will treat patients with Stargardt's macular dystrophy using transplanted retinal pigment epithelium derived from hESCs. Currently, no effective treatment is available for Stargardt's disease so a stem cell-based therapy that can slow progression of this blinding condition could represent a significant breakthrough. While there are some hurdles to clear, the ACT trial is a fine example of translational research that could eventually pave the way for a range of stem cell therapies for the retina and other tissues.

A prospective randomised trial of a "test and treat" policy versus endoscopy based management in young Helicobacter pylori positive patients with ulcer-like dyspepsia, referred to a hospital clinic

Management of dyspepsia remains a controversial area. Although the European Helicobacter pylori study group has advised empirical eradication therapy without oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD) in young H pylori positive dyspeptic patients who do not exhibit alarm symptoms, this strategy has not been subjected to clinical trial.

Encouraging lifestyle behaviour change in mild cognitive impairment patients:development of appropriate educational material

Objectives: A healthy lifestyle may help maintain cognitive function and reduce the risk of developing dementia. This study employed a focus group approach in order to gain insight into opinions of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) patients, caregivers (CG) and health professionals (HP) regarding lifestyle and its relationship with cognition. The qualitative data were used to design, develop and pilot test educational material (EM) to help encourage lifestyle behaviour change. Method: Data gathering phase: structured interviews were conducted with HP (n = 10), and focus groups with MCI patients (n = 24) and CG (n = 12). EM was developed and pilot tested with a new group of MCI patients (n = 21) and CG (n = 6). Results: HP alluded to the lack of clinical trial evidence for a lifestyle and MCI risk link. Although they felt that lifestyle modifications should be recommended to MCI patients, they appeared hesitant in communicating this information and discussions were often patient-driven. MCI patients lacked awareness of the lifestyle cognition link. Participants preferred EM to be concise, eye-catching and in written format, with personal delivery of information favoured. Most pilot testers approved of the EM but were heterogeneous in terms of lifestyle, willingness to change and support needed to change. Conclusion: MCI patients need to be made more aware of the importance of lifestyle for cognition. EM such as those developed here, which are specifically tailored for this population would be valuable for HP who, currently, appear reticent in initiating lifestyle-related discussions. Following further evaluation, the EM could be used in health promotion activities targeting MCI patients.