Explore the vast range of titles available.

The approval of Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors in patients with previously untreated chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) was based on trials which compared ibrutinib with alkylating agents in patients considered unfit for fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab, the most effective chemoimmunotherapy in CLL. We aimed to assess whether ibrutinib and rituximab is superior to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab in terms of progression-free survival. This study is an interim analysis of FLAIR, which is an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial in patients with previously untreated CLL done at 101 UK National Health Service hospitals. Eligible patients were between 18 and 75 years of age with a WHO performance status of 2 or less and disease status requiring treatment according to International Workshop on CLL criteria. Patients with greater than 20% of their CLL cells having the chromosome 17p deletion were excluded. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by means of minimisation (Binet stage, age, sex, and centre) with a random element in a web-based system to ibrutinib and rituximab (ibrutinib administered orally at 420 mg/day for up to 6 years; rituximab administered intravenously at 375 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycle 1 and at 500 mg/m2 on day 1 of cycles 2–6 of a 28-day cycle) or fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (fludarabine 24 mg/m2 per day orally on day 1–5, cyclophosphamide 150 mg/m2 per day orally on days 1–5; rituximab as above for up to 6 cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN01844152, and EudraCT, 2013-001944-76, and recruiting is complete. Between Sept 19, 2014, and July 19, 2018, of 1924 patients assessed for eligibility, 771 were randomly assigned with median age 62 years (IQR 56–67), 565 (73%) were male, 206 (27%) were female and 507 (66%) had a WHO performance status of 0. 385 patients were assigned to fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab and 386 patients to ibrutinib and rituximab. After a median follow-up of 53 months (IQR 41–61) and at prespecified interim analysis, median progression-free survival was not reached (NR) with ibrutinib and rituximab and was 67 months (95% CI 63–NR) with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab (hazard ratio 0·44 [95% CI 0·32–0·60]; p<0·0001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse event was leukopenia (203 [54%] patients in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and 55 [14%] patients in the ibrutinib and rituximab group. Serious adverse events were reported in 205 (53%) of 384 patients receiving ibrutinib and rituximab compared with 203 (54%) of 378 patients receiving fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab. Two deaths in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group and three deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group were deemed to be probably related to treatment. There were eight sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group and two in the fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab group. Front line treatment with ibrutinib and rituximab significantly improved progression-free survival compared with fludarabine, cyclophosphamide, and rituximab but did not improve overall survival. A small number of sudden unexplained or cardiac deaths in the ibrutinib and rituximab group were observed largely among patients with existing hypertension or history of cardiac disorder. Cancer Research UK and Janssen.

Patients with multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide maintenance therapy have improved progression-free survival, primarily following autologous stem-cell transplantation. A beneficial effect of lenalidomide maintenance therapy on overall survival in this setting has been inconsistent between individual studies. Minimal data are available on the effect of maintenance lenalidomide in more aggressive disease states, such as patients with cytogenetic high-risk disease or patients ineligible for transplantation. We aimed to assess lenalidomide maintenance versus observation in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, including cytogenetic risk and transplantation status subgroup analyses. The Myeloma XI trial was an open-label, randomised, phase 3, adaptive design trial with three randomisation stages done at 110 National Health Service hospitals in England, Wales, and Scotland. There were three potential randomisations in the study: induction treatment (allocation by transplantation eligibility status); intensification treatment (allocation by response to induction therapy); and maintenance treatment. Here, we report the results of the randomisation to maintenance treatment. Eligible patients for maintenance randomisation were aged 18 years or older and had symptomatic or non-secretory multiple myeloma, had completed their assigned induction therapy as per protocol and had achieved at least a minimal response to protocol treatment, including lenalidomide. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1 from Jan 13, 2011, to Jun 27, 2013, and 2:1 from Jun 28, 2013, to Aug 11, 2017) to lenalidomide maintenance (10 mg orally on days 1–21 of a 28-day cycle) or observation, and stratified by allocated induction and intensification treatment, and centre. The co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival and overall survival, analysed by intention to treat. Safety analysis was per protocol. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN49407852, and clinicaltrialsregister.eu, number 2009-010956-93, and has completed recruitment. Between Jan 13, 2011, and Aug 11, 2017, 1917 patients were accrued to the maintenance treatment randomisation of the trial. 1137 patients were assigned to lenalidomide maintenance and 834 patients to observation. After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 18–50), median progression-free survival was 39 months (95% CI 36–42) with lenalidomide and 20 months (18–22) with observation (hazard ratio [HR] 0·46 [95% CI 0·41–0·53]; p<0·0001), and 3-year overall survival was 78·6% (95% Cl 75·6–81·6) in the lenalidomide group and 75·8% (72·4–79·2) in the observation group (HR 0·87 [95% CI 0·73–1·05]; p=0·15). Progression-free survival was improved with lenalidomide compared with observation across all prespecified subgroups. On prespecified subgroup analyses by transplantation status, 3-year overall survival in transplantation-eligible patients was 87·5% (95% Cl 84·3–90·7) in the lenalidomide group and 80·2% (76·0–84·4) in the observation group (HR 0·69 [95% CI 0·52–0·93]; p=0·014), and in transplantation-ineligible patients it was 66·8% (61·6–72·1) in the lenalidomide group and 69·8% (64·4–75·2) in the observation group (1·02 [0·80–1·29]; p=0·88). By cytogenetic risk group, in standard-risk patients, 3-year overall survival was 86·4% (95% CI 80·0–90·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 81·3% (74·2–86·7) in the observation group, and in high-risk patients, it was 74.9% (65·8–81·9) in the lenalidomide group compared with 63·7% (52·8–72·7) in the observation group; and in ultra-high-risk patients it was 62·9% (46·0–75·8) compared with 43·5% (22·2–63·1). Since these subgroup analyses results were not powered they should be interpreted with caution. The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events for patients taking lenalidomide were haematological, including neutropenia (362 [33%] patients), thrombocytopenia (72 [7%] patients), and anaemia (42 [4%] patients). Serious adverse events were reported in 494 (45%) of 1097 patients receiving lenalidomide compared with 150 (17%) of 874 patients on observation. The most common serious adverse events were infections in both the lenalidomide group and the observation group. 460 deaths occurred during maintenance treatment, 234 (21%) in the lenalidomide group and 226 (27%) in the observation group, and no deaths in the lenalidomide group were deemed treatment related. Maintenance therapy with lenalidomide significantly improved progression-free survival in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma compared with observation, but did not improve overall survival in the intention-to-treat analysis of the whole trial population. The manageable safety profile of this drug and the encouraging results in subgroup analyses of patients across all cytogenetic risk groups support further investigation of maintenance lenalidomide in this setting. Cancer Research UK, Celgene, Amgen, Merck, and Myeloma UK.

Relapsed multiple myeloma has no standard treatment, and the role of autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT) has not been fully defined. We aimed to compare high-dose melphalan plus salvage ASCT with cyclophosphamide in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma who had previously undergone ASCT. This multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 study recruited patients aged at least 18 years with multiple myeloma who needed treatment for first progressive or relapsed disease at least 18 months after a previous ASCT from 51 centres across the UK. Before randomisation, eligible patients received bortezomib, doxorubicin, and dexamethasone (PAD) induction therapy and then underwent peripheral blood stem-cell mobilisation and harvesting if applicable. Eligible patients (with adequate stem-cell harvest) were randomly assigned (1:1), using an automated telephone randomisation line, to either high-dose melphalan 200 mg/m2 plus salvage ASCT or oral cyclophosphamide (400mg/m2 per week for 12 weeks). Randomisation was stratified by length of first remission or plateau and response to PAD re-induction therapy. The primary endpoint was time to disease progression, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00747877, and EudraCT, number 2006-005890-24. Between April 16, 2008, and Nov 19, 2012, 297 patients were registered, of whom 293 received PAD re-induction therapy. Between Aug 26, 2008, and Nov 16, 2012, 174 patients with sufficient PBSCs were randomised to salvage ASCT (n=89) or cyclophosphamide (n=85). After a median follow-up of 31 months (IQR 19–42), median time to progression was significantly longer in the salvage ASCT than in the cyclophosphamide group (19 months [95% CI 16–25] vs 11 months [9–12]; hazard ratio 0·36 [95% CI 0·25–0·53]; p<0·0001). Frequently reported (in >10% of patients) grade 3–4 adverse events with PAD induction, salvage ASCT, and cyclophosphamide were: neutropenia (125 [43%] of 293 patients after PAD, and 63 [76%] of 83 patients in the salvage ASCT group vs 11 [13%] of 84 patients in the cyclophosphamide group), thrombocytopenia (150 [51%] after PAD, and 60 [72%] vs four [5%], respectively), and peripheral neuropathy (35 [12%] after PAD, and none vs none, respectively). This study provides evidence for the improved efficacy of high-dose melphalan plus salvage ASCT when compared with cyclophosphamide in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma eligible for intensive therapy, which might help to guide clinical decisions regarding the management of such patients. Cancer Research UK.

Background Overall survival is the “gold standard” endpoint in cancer clinical trials. It plays a key role in determining the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of a new intervention and whether it is recommended for use in standard of care. The assessment of overall survival usually requires trial participants to be followed up for a long period of time. In this time, they may stop receiving the trial intervention and receive subsequent anti-cancer treatments, which also aim to extend survival, during trial follow-up. This can potentially change the interpretation of overall survival in the context of the clinical trial. This review aimed to determine how overall survival has been assessed in cancer clinical trials and whether subsequent anti-cancer treatments are considered. Methods Two searches were conducted using MEDLINE within OVID© on the 9th of November 2021. The first sought to identify papers publishing overall survival results from randomised controlled trials in eight reputable journals and the second to identify papers mentioning or considering subsequent treatments. Papers published since 2010 were included if presenting or discussing overall survival in the context of treating cancer. Results One hundred and thirty-four papers were included. The majority of these were presenting clinical trial results (98, 73%). Of these, 45 (46%) reported overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint. A lower proportion of papers including overall survival as a (co-) primary endpoint compared to a secondary endpoint were published in recent years. The primary analysis of overall survival varied across the papers. Fifty-nine (60%) mentioned subsequent treatments. Seven papers performed additional analysis, primarily when patients in the control arm received the experimental treatment during trial follow-up (treatment switching). Discussion Overall survival has steadily moved from being the primary to a secondary endpoint. However, it is still of interest with papers presenting overall survival results with the caveat of subsequent treatments, but little or no investigation into their effect. This review shows that there is a methodological gap for what researchers should do when trial participants receive anti-cancer treatment during trial follow-up. Future research will identify the stakeholder opinions, on how this methodological gap should be addressed.

Background Overall survival is used to assess clinical effectiveness in cancer clinical trials. In practice, it may be influenced by intercurrent events post-randomisation. The decisions made on how to address intercurrent events, change the interpretation of the results. An example is when participants stop their trial intervention and start subsequent anti-cancer interventions (treatment lines) during trial follow-up. At present, there is no evidence on the views of all stakeholders about this intercurrent event or consensus on how it should be addressed. The aim of this work was to understand the perspectives of all stakeholders and to obtain consensus through a qualitative study to guide future methodological work. Methods A modified Rand/UCLA appropriateness method was implemented. Stakeholder views were collected using an online questionnaire and discussed at a focus group. The questionnaire included items on, the different methods for addressing an intercurrent event, data collection following an intercurrent event, statistical assumptions, and data presentation. Analysis was descriptive incorporating a conventional content approach. Consensus was defined a priori. Results One hundred three stakeholders (30 statisticians or other data analysts, 6 payers or industry partners, 22 healthcare professionals and 45 patient, carer or members of the public) completed the questionnaire between 3/8/2022 and 30/9/2022. Seventy-nine percent of respondents thought it important to consider the potential effect of subsequent treatment lines. Consensus was reached on most questionnaire items. Stakeholders agreed that statistical assumptions were applicable only in “Some Scenarios” and that results should be presented using both a visual and summary measure. The focus group discussed different methods for addressing an intercurrent event and items around data collection where consensus was unclear. Seven participants attended (two patients/carers, one healthcare professional, three statisticians and one payer) with K-LR and PW. Attendees agreed that the treatment policy approach should be considered in future work as it was the most realistic, and that data collection was acceptable with informed consent. Discussion This work demonstrates that all stakeholder groups are interested in how subsequent treatment lines may impact overall survival and provides evidence on what future methodological work in the area should consider. The next step of this work will investigate whether it is possible to estimate the overall survival treatment effect in a hypothetical scenario where participants who received second-line therapy all received the same second-line therapy. This will aim to complement the existing treatment policy approach and quantify the impact of subsequent treatments.

Carfilzomib is a second-generation irreversible proteasome inhibitor that is efficacious in the treatment of myeloma and carries less risk of peripheral neuropathy than first-generation proteasome inhibitors, making it more amenable to combination therapy. The Myeloma XI+ trial recruited patients from 88 sites across the UK between 5 December 2013 and 20 April 2016. Patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma eligible for transplantation were randomly assigned to receive the combination carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (KRdc) or a triplet of lenalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Rdc) or thalidomide, dexamethasone, and cyclophosphamide (Tdc). All patients were planned to receive an autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) prior to a randomisation between lenalidomide maintenance and observation. Eligible patients were aged over 18 years and had symptomatic myeloma. The co-primary endpoints for the study were progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) for KRdc versus the Tdc/Rdc control group by intention to treat. PFS, response, and safety outcomes are reported following a planned interim analysis. The trial is registered (ISRCTN49407852) and has completed recruitment. In total, 1,056 patients (median age 61 years, range 33 to 75, 39.1% female) underwent induction randomisation to KRdc (n = 526) or control (Tdc/Rdc, n = 530). After a median follow-up of 34.5 months, KRdc was associated with a significantly longer PFS than the triplet control group (hazard ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.51-0.76). The median PFS for patients receiving KRdc is not yet estimable, versus 36.2 months for the triplet control group (p < 0.001). Improved PFS was consistent across subgroups of patients including those with genetically high-risk disease. At the end of induction, the percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response was 82.3% in the KRdc group versus 58.9% in the control group (odds ratio 4.35, 95% CI 3.19-5.94, p < 0.001). Minimal residual disease negativity (cutoff 4 × 10-5 bone marrow leucocytes) was achieved in 55% of patients tested in the KRdc group at the end of induction, increasing to 75% of those tested after ASCT. The most common adverse events were haematological, with a low incidence of cardiac events. The trial continues to follow up patients to the co-primary endpoint of OS and for planned long-term follow-up analysis. Limitations of the study include a lack of blinding to treatment regimen and that the triplet control regimen did not include a proteasome inhibitor for all patients, which would be considered a current standard of care in many parts of the world. The KRdc combination was well tolerated and was associated with both an increased percentage of patients achieving at least a very good partial response and a significant PFS benefit compared to immunomodulatory-agent-based triplet therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN49407852.

Pacemakers are widely utilised to treat bradycardia, but right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with heightened risk of left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and heart failure. We aimed to compare personalised pacemaker reprogramming to avoid RV pacing with usual care on echocardiographic and patient-orientated outcomes. A prospective phase II randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trial in 100 patients with a pacemaker implanted for indications other than third degree heart block for ≥2 years. Personalised pacemaker reprogramming was guided by a published protocol. Primary outcome was change in LV ejection fraction on echocardiography after 6 months. Secondary outcomes included LV remodeling, quality of life, and battery longevity. Clinical and pacemaker variables were similar between groups. The mean age (SD) of participants was 76 (+/-9) years and 71% were male. Nine patients withdrew due to concurrent illness, leaving 91 patients in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 6 months, personalised programming compared to usual care, reduced RV pacing (-6.5±1.8% versus -0.21±1.7%; p<0.01), improved LV function (LV ejection fraction +3.09% [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48 to 5.70%; p = 0.02]) and LV dimensions (LV end systolic volume indexed to body surface area -2.99mL/m2 [95% CI -5.69 to -0.29; p = 0.03]). Intervention also preserved battery longevity by approximately 5 months (+0.38 years [95% CI 0.14 to 0.62; p<0.01)) with no evidence of an effect on quality of life (+0.19, [95% CI -0.25 to 0.62; p = 0.402]). Personalised programming in patients with pacemakers for bradycardia can improve LV function and size, extend battery longevity, and is safe and acceptable to patients. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03627585.

Measurement of overall survival (OS) remains the gold standard for interpreting the impact of new therapies for multiple myeloma in phase 3 trials. However, as outcomes have improved, it is increasingly challenging to use OS as the primary endpoint if timely approval of novel agents is to be ensured to enable maximum benefit for patients. Surrogate endpoints of OS, such as progression-free survival (PFS) and response to treatment, have contributed to approval decisions by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency as endpoints demonstrating clinical benefit, and the FDA has recently supported the use of minimal residual disease (MRD) as an accelerated approval endpoint in multiple myeloma. This review aims to address situations in which the use of PFS as a surrogate endpoint warrants careful interpretation especially for specific subgroups of patients and considers ways to ensure that studies can be designed to account for possible discordance between PFS and OS. The utility of subgroup analyses, including the potential for those not pre-specified, to identify target populations for new agents is also discussed.

Background The United Kingdom Myeloma Research Alliance (UK-MRA) Myeloma Risk Profile is a prognostic model for overall survival. It was trained and tested on clinical trial data, aiming to improve the stratification of transplant ineligible (TNE) patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma. Missing data is a common problem which affects the development and validation of prognostic models, where decisions on how to address missingness have implications on the choice of methodology. Methods Model building The training and test datasets were the TNE pathways from two large randomised multicentre, phase III clinical trials. Potential prognostic factors were identified by expert opinion. Missing data in the training dataset was imputed using multiple imputation by chained equations. Univariate analysis fitted Cox proportional hazards models in each imputed dataset with the estimates combined by Rubin’s rules. Multivariable analysis applied penalised Cox regression models, with a fixed penalty term across the imputed datasets. The estimates from each imputed dataset and bootstrap standard errors were combined by Rubin’s rules to define the prognostic model. Model assessment Calibration was assessed by visualising the observed and predicted probabilities across the imputed datasets. Discrimination was assessed by combining the prognostic separation D-statistic from each imputed dataset by Rubin’s rules. Model validation The D-statistic was applied in a bootstrap internal validation process in the training dataset and an external validation process in the test dataset, where acceptable performance was pre-specified. Development of risk groups Risk groups were defined using the tertiles of the combined prognostic index, obtained by combining the prognostic index from each imputed dataset by Rubin’s rules. Results The training dataset included 1852 patients, 1268 (68.47%) with complete case data. Ten imputed datasets were generated. Five hundred twenty patients were included in the test dataset. The D-statistic for the prognostic model was 0.840 (95% CI 0.716–0.964) in the training dataset and 0.654 (95% CI 0.497–0.811) in the test dataset and the corrected D-Statistic was 0.801. Conclusion The decision to impute missing covariate data in the training dataset influenced the methods implemented to train and test the model. To extend current literature and aid future researchers, we have presented a detailed example of one approach. Whilst our example is not without limitations, a benefit is that all of the patient information available in the training dataset was utilised to develop the model. Trial registration Both trials were registered; Myeloma IX- ISRCTN68454111 , registered 21 September 2000. Myeloma XI- ISRCTN49407852 , registered 24 June 2009.

IntroductionMultiple myeloma is a plasma cell malignancy that accounts for 1%–2% of newly diagnosed cancers.At diagnosis, approximately 20% of patients can be identified, using cytogenetics, to have inferior survival (high-risk). Additionally, standard-risk patients, with detectable disease (minimal residual disease (MRD)-positive) postautologus stem cell transplant (ASCT), fare worse compared with those who do not (MRD-negative). Research is required to determine whether a risk-adapted approach post-ASCT could further improve patient outcomes.MethodsRADAR is a UK, multicentre, risk-adapted, response-guided, open-label, randomised controlled trial for transplant-eligible newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients, using combinations of lenalidomide (R), cyclophosphamide (Cy), bortezomib (Bor), dexamethasone (D) and isatuximab (Isa).Participants receive RCyBorD(x4) induction therapy, followed by high-dose melphalan and ASCT. Post-ASCT, there are three pathways as follows:A phase III discontinuation design to assess de-escalating therapy in standard-risk MRD-negative patients. Participants receive 12 cycles of Isa maintenance. Those who remain MRD-negative are randomised to either continue or stop treatment.A phase II/III multiarm multistage design to test treatment strategies for treatment escalation in standard-risk MRD-positive patients. Participants are randomised to either; R, RBorD(x4) +R, RIsa, or RBorIsaD(x4) + RIsa.A phase II design to assess the activity of intensive treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Participants are randomised to RBorD(x4) +R or RBorIsaD(x4) + RIsa.1400 participants will be registered to allow for 500, 450 and 172 participants in each pathway. Randomisations are equal and treatment is given until disease progression or intolerance.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was granted by the London–Central Research Ethics Committee (20/LO/0238) and capacity and capability confirmed by the appropriate local research and development department for each participating centre prior to opening recruitment. Participant informed consent is required before trial registration and reconfirmed post-ASCT. Results will be disseminated by conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration numberISCRTN46841867.