Multicenter randomized phase II clinical trial comparing neoadjuvant oxaliplatin, capecitabine, and preoperative radiotherapy with or without cetuximab followed by total mesorectal excision in patients with high-risk rectal cancer (EXPERT-C).

PURPOSE: To evaluate the addition of cetuximab to neoadjuvant chemotherapy before chemoradiotherapy in high-risk rectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with operable magnetic resonance imaging-defined high-risk rectal cancer received four cycles of capecitabine/oxaliplatin (CAPOX) followed by capecitabine chemoradiotherapy, surgery, and adjuvant CAPOX (four cycles) or the same regimen plus weekly cetuximab (CAPOX+C). The primary end point was complete response (CR; pathologic CR or, in patients not undergoing surgery, radiologic CR) in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type tumors. Secondary end points were radiologic response (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety in the wild-type and overall populations and a molecular biomarker analysis. RESULTS: One hundred sixty-five eligible patients were randomly assigned. Ninety (60%) of 149 assessable tumors were KRAS or BRAF wild type (CAPOX, n = 44; CAPOX+C, n = 46), and in these patients, the addition of cetuximab did not improve the primary end point of CR (9% v 11%, respectively; P = 1.0; odds ratio, 1.22) or PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; P = .363). Cetuximab significantly improved RR (CAPOX v CAPOX+C: after chemotherapy, 51% v 71%, respectively; P = .038; after chemoradiation, 75% v 93%, respectively; P = .028) and OS (HR, 0.27; P = .034). Skin toxicity and diarrhea were more frequent in the CAPOX+C arm. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab led to a significant increase in RR and OS in patients with KRAS/BRAF wild-type rectal cancer, but the primary end point of improved CR was not met.

Effectiveness of a programme of exercise on physical function in survivors of critical illness following discharge from the ICU: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial (REVIVE)

Background: Following discharge home from the ICU, patients often suffer from reduced physical function, exercise capacity, health-related quality of life and social functioning. There is usually no support to address these longer term problems, and there has been limited research carried out into interventions which could improve patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to investigate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a 6-week programme of exercise on physical function in patients discharged from hospital following critical illness compared to standard care.

Methods/Design: The study design is a multicentre prospective phase II, allocation-concealed, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled clinical trial. Participants randomised to the intervention group will complete three exercise sessions per week (two sessions of supervised exercise and one unsupervised session) for 6 weeks. Supervised sessions will take place in a hospital gymnasium or, if this is not possible, in the participants home and the unsupervised session will take place at home. Blinded outcome assessment will be conducted at baseline after hospital discharge, following the exercise intervention, and at 6 months following baseline assessment (or equivalent time points for the standard care group). The primary outcome measure is physical function as measured by the physical functioning subscale of the Short-Form-36 health survey following the exercise programme. Secondary outcomes are health-related quality of life, exercise capacity, anxiety and depression, self efficacy to exercise and healthcare resource use. In addition, semi-structured interviews will be conducted to explore participants’ perceptions of the exercise programme, and the feasibility (safety, practicality and acceptability) of providing the exercise programme will be assessed. A within-trial cost-utility analysis to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention compared to standard care will also be conducted.

Discussion: If the exercise programme is found to be effective, this study will improve outcomes that are meaningful to patients and their families. It will inform the design of a future multicentre phase III clinical trial of exercise following recovery from critical illness. It will provide useful information which will help the development of services for patients after critical illness.

A phase I/II trial of vorinostat in combination with 5-fluorouracil in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who previously failed 5-FU-based chemotherapy

PURPOSE: We conducted a phase I/II clinical trial to determine the safety and feasibility of combining vorinostat with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and elevated intratumoral thymidylate synthase (TS).

METHODS: Patients with mCRC who had failed all standard therapeutic options were eligible. Intratumoral TS mRNA expression and peripheral blood mononuclear cell (PBMC) histone acetylation were measured before and after 6 consecutive days of vorinostat treatment at 400 mg PO daily. 5-FU/LV were given on days 6 and 7 and repeated every 2 weeks, along with continuous daily vorinostat. Dose escalation occurred in cohorts of three to six patients.

RESULTS: Ten patients were enrolled. Three dose levels were explored in the phase I portion of the study. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) were observed at the starting dose level, which resulted in dose de-escalation to levels -1 and -2. Given the occurrence of two DLTs at each of the dose levels, we were unable to establish a maximum tolerated dose (MTD). Two patients achieved significant disease stabilization for 4 and 6 months. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities included fatigue, thrombocytopenia and mucositis. Intratumoral TS downregulation > or = 50% was observed in one patient only. Acetylation of histone 3 was observed in PBMCs following vorinostat treatment.

CONCLUSIONS: The study failed to establish a MTD and was terminated. The presence of PBMC histone acetylation indicates biological activity of vorinostat, however, consistent reductions in intratumoral TS mRNA were not observed. Alternate vorinostat dose-scheduling may alleviate the toxicity and achieve optimal TS downregulation.

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

A descriptive study of the usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques within a randomised clinical trial in acute low back pain

The majority of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of spinal manipulative therapy have not adequately de?ned the terms ‘mobilization’ and ‘manipulation’, nor distinguished between these terms in reporting the trial interventions. The purpose of this study was to describe the spinal manipulative therapy techniques utilized within a RCT of manipulative therapy (MT; n=80), interferential therapy (IFT; n=80), and a combination of both (CT; n=80) for people with acute low back pain (LBP). Spinal manipulative therapy was de?ned as any ‘mobilization’ (low velocity manual force without a thrust) or ‘manipulation’ (high velocity
thrust) techniques of the spine described by Maitland and Cyriax.
The 16 physiotherapists, all members of the Society of Orthopaedic Medicine, utilized three spinal manipulative therapy patterns in the RCT: Maitland Mobilization (40.4%, n=59), Maitland Mobilization/Cyriax Manipulation (40.4%, n=59) and Cyriax Manipulation (19.1%, n=28). There was a signi?cant difference between the MT and CT groups in their usage of spinal manipulative therapy techniques (w2=9.178; df=2;P=0.01); subjects randomized to the CT group received three times more Cyriax Manipulation (29.2%, n=21/72) than those randomized to the MT group (9.5%, n=7/74; df=1; P=0.003).
The use of mobilization techniques within the trial was comparable with their usage by the general population of physiotherapists in Britain and Ireland for LBP management. However, the usage of manipulation techniques was considerably higher than reported in physiotherapy surveys and may re?ect the postgraduate training of trial therapists.