UK publicly funded Clinical Trials Units supported a controlled access approach to share individual participant data but highlighted concerns

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate current data sharing activities of UK publicly funded Clinical Trial Units (CTUs) and identify good practices and barriers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Web-based survey of Directors of 45 UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC)-registered CTUs.

RESULTS: Twenty-three (51%) CTUs responded: Five (22%) of these had an established data sharing policy and eight (35%) specifically requested consent to use patient data beyond the scope of the original trial. Fifteen (65%) CTUs had received requests for data, and seven (30%) had made external requests for data in the previous 12 months. CTUs supported the need for increased data sharing activities although concerns were raised about patient identification, misuse of data, and financial burden. Custodianship of clinical trial data and requirements for a CTU to align its policy to their parent institutes were also raised. No CTUs supported the use of an open access model for data sharing.

CONCLUSION: There is support within the publicly funded UKCRC-registered CTUs for data sharing, but many perceived barriers remain. CTUs are currently using a variety of approaches and procedures for sharing data. This survey has informed further work, including development of guidance for publicly funded CTUs, to promote good practice and facilitate data sharing.

The Cyclin D1 (CCND1) A870G polymorphism predicts clinical outcome to lapatinib and capecitabine in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND: Lapatinib plus capecitabine emerged as an efficacious therapy in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We aimed to identify germline single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes involved in capecitabine catabolism and human epidermal receptor signaling that were associated with clinical outcome to assist in selecting patients likely to benefit from this combination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS: DNA was extracted from 240 of 399 patients enrolled in EGF100151 clinical trial (NCT00078572; clinicaltrials.gov) and SNPs were successfully evaluated in 234 patients. The associations between SNPs and clinical outcome were analyzed using Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier curves, log-rank tests, likelihood ratio test within logistic or Cox regression model, as appropriate.

RESULTS: There were significant interactions between CCND1 A870G and clinical outcome. Patients carrying the A-allele were more likely to benefit from lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine when compared with patients harboring G/G (P = 0.022, 0.024 and 0.04, respectively). In patients with the A-allele, the response rate (RR) was significantly higher with lapatinib plus capecitabine (35%) compared with capecitabine (11%; P = 0.001) but not between treatments in patients with G/G (RR = 24% and 32%, respectively; P = 0.85). Time to tumor progression (TTP) was longer in patients with the A-allele treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine compared with capecitabine (median TTP = 7.9 and 3.4 months; P < 0.001), but not in patients with G/G (median TTP = 6.1 and 6.6 months; P = 0.92).

CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that CCND1A870G may be useful in predicting clinical outcome in HER2-positive mBC patients treated with lapatinib plus capecitabine.

Learning from the QUEST multicentre feasibility randomization trials in breast reconstruction after mastectomy

BACKGROUND: Breast reconstruction aims to improve health-related quality of life after mastectomy. However, evidence guiding patients and surgeons in shared decision-making concerning the optimal type or timing of surgery is lacking.

METHODS: QUEST comprised two parallel feasibility phase III randomized multicentre trials to assess the impact of the type and timing of latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction on health-related quality of life when postmastectomy radiotherapy is unlikely (QUEST A) or highly probable (QUEST B). The primary endpoint for the feasibility phase was the proportion of women who accepted randomization, and it would be considered feasible if patient acceptability rates exceeded 25 per cent of women approached. A companion QUEST Perspectives Study (QPS) of patients (both accepting and declining trial participation) and healthcare professionals assessed trial acceptability.

RESULTS: The QUEST trials opened in 15 UK centres. After 18 months of recruitment, 17 patients were randomized to QUEST A and eight to QUEST B, with overall acceptance rates of 19 per cent (17 of 88) and 22 per cent (8 of 36) respectively. The QPS recruited 56 patients and 51 healthcare professionals. Patient preference was the predominant reason for declining trial entry, given by 47 (53 per cent) of the 88 patients approached for QUEST A and 22 (61 per cent) of the 36 approached for QUEST B. Both trials closed to recruitment in December 2012, acknowledging the challenges of achieving satisfactory patient accrual.

CONCLUSION: Despite extensive efforts to overcome recruitment barriers, it was not feasible to reach timely recruitment targets within a feasibility study. Patient preferences for breast reconstruction types and timings were common, rendering patients unwilling to enter the trial.

Failure-Free Survival and Radiotherapy in Patients With Newly Diagnosed Nonmetastatic Prostate Cancer: Data From Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial

Importance: The natural history of patients with newly diagnosed high-risk nonmetastatic (M0) prostate cancer receiving hormone therapy (HT) either alone or with standard-of-care radiotherapy (RT) is not well documented. Furthermore, no clinical trial has assessed the role of RT in patients with node-positive (N+) M0 disease. The STAMPEDE Trial includes such individuals, allowing an exploratory multivariate analysis of the impact of radical RT.

Objective: To describe survival and the impact on failure-free survival of RT by nodal involvement in these patients.

Design, Setting, and Participants: Cohort study using data collected for patients allocated to the control arm (standard-of-care only) of the STAMPEDE Trial between October 5, 2005, and May 1, 2014. Outcomes are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models; survival estimates are reported at 2 and 5 years. Participants were high-risk, hormone-naive patients with newly diagnosed M0 prostate cancer starting long-term HT for the first time. Radiotherapy is encouraged in this group, but mandated for patients with node-negative (N0) M0 disease only since November 2011.

Exposures: Long-term HT either alone or with RT, as per local standard. Planned RT use was recorded at entry.

Main Outcomes and Measures: Failure-free survival (FFS) and overall survival.

Results: A total of 721 men with newly diagnosed M0 disease were included: median age at entry, 66 (interquartile range [IQR], 61-72) years, median (IQR) prostate-specific antigen level of 43 (18-88) ng/mL. There were 40 deaths (31 owing to prostate cancer) with 17 months' median follow-up. Two-year survival was 96% (95% CI, 93%-97%) and 2-year FFS, 77% (95% CI, 73%-81%). Median (IQR) FFS was 63 (26 to not reached) months. Time to FFS was worse in patients with N+ disease (HR, 2.02 [95% CI, 1.46-2.81]) than in those with N0 disease. Failure-free survival outcomes favored planned use of RT for patients with both N0M0 (HR, 0.33 [95% CI, 0.18-0.61]) and N+M0 disease (HR, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.29-0.79]).

Conclusions and Relevance: Survival for men entering the cohort with high-risk M0 disease was higher than anticipated at study inception. These nonrandomized data were consistent with previous trials that support routine use of RT with HT in patients with N0M0 disease. Additionally, the data suggest that the benefits of RT extend to men with N+M0 disease.

Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00268476; ISRCTN78818544.

Personalised and Precision Medicine in Cancer Clinical Trials: Panacea for Progress or Pandora's Box?

Cancer clinical trials have been one of the key foundations for significant advances in oncology. However, there is a clear recognition within the academic, care delivery and pharmaceutical/biotech communities that our current model of clinical trial discovery and development is no longer fit for purpose. Delivering transformative cancer care should increasingly be our mantra, rather than maintaining the status quo of, at best, the often miniscule incremental benefits that are observed with many current clinical trials. As we enter the era of precision medicine for personalised cancer care (precision and personalised medicine), it is important that we capture and utilise our greater understanding of the biology of disease to drive innovative approaches in clinical trial design and implementation that can lead to a step change in cancer care delivery. A number of advances have been practice changing (e.g. imatinib mesylate in chronic myeloid leukaemia, Herceptin in erb-B2-positive breast cancer), and increasingly we are seeing the promise of a number of newer approaches, particularly in diseases like lung cancer and melanoma. Targeting immune checkpoints has recently yielded some highly promising results. New algorithms that maximise the effectiveness of clinical trials, through for example a multi-stage, multi-arm type design are increasingly gaining traction. However, our enthusiasm for the undoubted advances that have been achieved are being tempered by a realisation that these new approaches may have significant cost implications. This article will address these competing issues, mainly from a European perspective, highlight the problems and challenges to healthcare systems and suggest potential solutions that will ensure that the cost/value rubicon is addressed in a way that allows stakeholders to work together to deliver optimal cost-effective cancer care, the benefits of which can be transferred directly to our patients.