Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m(2) on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m(2) and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m(2) on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. FINDINGS: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11.3 months (95% CI 9.6-13.0) compared with 8.8 months (7.7-9.8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1.37, 95% CI 1.07-1.76; p=0.013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥ 3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). INTERPRETATION: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. FUNDING: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre.

Radium-223 and concomitant therapies in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: an international, early access, open-label, single-arm phase 3b trial

BACKGROUND: In the previously reported ALSYMPCA trial in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and symptomatic bone metastases, overall survival was significantly longer in patients treated with radium-223 dichloride (radium-223) than in patients treated with placebo. In this study, we investigated safety and overall survival in radium-223 treated patients in an early access programme done after the ALSYMPCA study and before regulatory approval of radium-223.

METHODS: We did an international, prospective, interventional, open-label, single-arm, phase 3b study. Enrolled patients were aged 18 years or older with histologically or cytologically confirmed progressive bone-predominant metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with two or more skeletal metastases on imaging (with no restriction as to whether they were symptomatic or asymptomatic; without visceral disease but lymph node metastases were allowed). Patients received intravenous injections of radium-223, 50 kBq/kg (current recommendation 55 kBq/kg after implementation of National Institute of Standards and Technology update on April 18, 2016) every 4 weeks for up to six injections. Other concomitant anticancer therapies were allowed. Primary endpoints were safety and overall survival. The safety and efficacy analyses were done on all patients who received at least one dose of the study drug. The study has been completed, and we report the final analysis here. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01618370, and the European Union Clinical Trials Register, EudraCT number 2012-000075-16.

FINDINGS: Between July 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2013, 839 patients were enrolled from 113 sites in 14 countries. 696 patients received one or more doses of radium-223; 403 (58%) of these patients had all six planned injections. Any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 523 (75%) of 696 patients; any-grade treatment-emergent adverse events deemed to be related to treatment were reported in 281 (40%) patients. The most common grade 3 or worse treatment-related treatment-emergent adverse events were anaemia in 32 (5%) patients, thrombocytopenia in 15 (2%) patients, neutropenia in ten (1%) patients, and leucopenia in nine (1%) patients. Any grade of serious adverse events were reported in 243 (35%) patients. Median follow-up was 7·5 months (IQR 5-11) and 210 deaths were reported; median overall survival was 16 months (95% CI 13-not available [NA]). In an exploratory analysis of overall survival with predefined factors, median overall survival was longer for: patients with baseline alkaline phosphatase concentration less than the upper limit of normal (ULN; median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than for patients with an alkaline phosphatase concentration equal to or greater than the ULN (median 12 months, 11-15); patients with baseline haemoglobin levels 10 g/dL or greater (median 17 months, 14-NA) than for patients with haemoglobin levels less than 10 g/dL (median 10 months, 8-14); patients with a baseline Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) of 0 (median NA, 17 months-NA) than for patients with an ECOG PS of 1 (median 13 months, 11-NA) or an ECOG PS of 2 or more (median 7 months, 5-11); and for patients with no reported baseline pain (median NA, 16 months-NA) than for those with mild pain (median 14 months, 13-NA) or moderate-severe pain (median 11 months, 9-13). Median overall survival was also longer in patients who received radium-223 plus abiraterone, enzalutamide, or both (median NA, 95% CI 16 months-NA) than in those who did not receive these agents (median 13 months, 12-16), and in patients who received radium-223 plus denosumab (median NA, 15 months-NA) than in patients who received radium-223 without denosumab (median 13 months, 12-NA).

INTERPRETATION: Our findings show that radium-223 can be safely combined with abiraterone or enzalutamide, which are now both part of the standard of care for patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Furthermore, our findings extend to patients who were asymptomatic at baseline, unlike those enrolled in the pivotal ALSYMPCA study. The findings of prolonged survival in patients treated with concomitant abiraterone, enzalutamide, or denosumab require confirmation in prospective randomised trials.

FUNDING: Pharmaceutical Division of Bayer.

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.

Effectiveness of Community versus Hospital Eye Service follow-up for patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration with quiescent disease (ECHoES): a virtual non-inferiority trial

OBJECTIVES: To compare the ability of ophthalmologists versus optometrists to correctly classify retinal lesions due to neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD).

DESIGN: Randomised balanced incomplete block trial. Optometrists in the community and ophthalmologists in the Hospital Eye Service classified lesions from vignettes comprising clinical information, colour fundus photographs and optical coherence tomographic images. Participants' classifications were validated against experts' classifications (reference standard).

SETTING: Internet-based application.

PARTICIPANTS: Ophthalmologists with experience in the age-related macular degeneration service; fully qualified optometrists not participating in nAMD shared care.

INTERVENTIONS: The trial emulated a conventional trial comparing optometrists' and ophthalmologists' decision-making, but vignettes, not patients, were assessed. Therefore, there were no interventions and the trial was virtual. Participants received training before assessing vignettes.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome-correct classification of the activity status of a lesion based on a vignette, compared with a reference standard. Secondary outcomes-potentially sight-threatening errors, judgements about specific lesion components and participants' confidence in their decisions.

RESULTS: In total, 155 participants registered for the trial; 96 (48 in each group) completed all assessments and formed the analysis population. Optometrists and ophthalmologists achieved 1702/2016 (84.4%) and 1722/2016 (85.4%) correct classifications, respectively (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; p=0.543). Optometrists' decision-making was non-inferior to ophthalmologists' with respect to the prespecified limit of 10% absolute difference (0.298 on the odds scale). Optometrists and ophthalmologists made similar numbers of sight-threatening errors (57/994 (5.7%) vs 62/994 (6.2%), OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.57; p=0.789). Ophthalmologists assessed lesion components as present less often than optometrists and were more confident about their classifications than optometrists.

CONCLUSIONS: Optometrists' ability to make nAMD retreatment decisions from vignettes is not inferior to ophthalmologists' ability. Shared care with optometrists monitoring quiescent nAMD lesions has the potential to reduce workload in hospitals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN07479761; pre-results registration.