Search Results Heading

MBRLSearchResults

mbrl.module.common.modules.added.book.to.shelf
Title added to your shelf!
View what I already have on My Shelf.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to add the title to your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Oops! Something went wrong.
Oops! Something went wrong.
While trying to remove the title from your shelf something went wrong :( Kindly try again later!
    Done
    Filters
    Reset
  • Discipline
      Discipline
      Clear All
      Discipline
  • Is Peer Reviewed
      Is Peer Reviewed
      Clear All
      Is Peer Reviewed
  • Item Type
      Item Type
      Clear All
      Item Type
  • Subject
      Subject
      Clear All
      Subject
  • Year
      Year
      Clear All
      From:
      -
      To:
  • More Filters
66 result(s) for "Maughan, Timothy"
Sort by:
The prognostic utility of pre‐treatment neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte‐ratio (NLR) in colorectal cancer: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Background Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer, and systemic markers of inflammation are increasingly recognised as negative prognostic factors for clinical outcome. Neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR) is readily available from routine blood testing of patients diagnosed with cancer. Methods Peer‐reviewed publications from PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE were identified according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Hazard ratios (HR) for overall survival (OS) and surrogate endpoints (SE; comprising disease‐, recurrence‐ and progression‐free survival) were pooled using a random effects model. Additional analysis was carried out to further investigate NLR as an independent prognostic factor and account for heterogeneity. Results Seventy‐one eligible papers comprising 32,788 patients were identified. High NLR was associated with poor clinical outcomes. Significant publication bias was observed, and larger studies also adjusted for more covariates. Correcting for publication bias in multivariate studies brought our best estimate for true effect size to HR = 1.57 (95% CI 1.39–1.78; p < 0.0001) for OS and to HR = 1.38 (95% CI 1.16–1.64; p = 0.0003) for SE. Conclusions NLR is confirmed as an easily available prognostic biomarker in colorectal cancer, despite the limitations of some studies previously reporting this finding. As such, it should be routinely collected in prospective clinical trials. While more standardised and rigorous large‐scale studies are needed before high NLR can be fully assessed as an independent predictor of CRC progression and outcome, the data suggest that it may be used to highlight individuals with tumour‐promoting inflammatory context. Systemic inflammation is increasingly recognised as a key determinant of cancer survival. Consequently, readouts of inflammatory status have received immense research focus lately as potential prognostic factors. In this report, the authors explore a simple full‐blood‐count‐derived metric, the neutrophil‐to‐lymphocyte ratio (NLR), as a prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. Based on 71 publications, accounting for 32,788 patients, high NLR emerges as a readily available predictor of poor clinical outcome both for overall survival and surrogate endpoints, such as disease or progression‐free survival.
Prognosis of patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer given systemic therapy: an analysis of individual patient data from prospective randomised trials from the Analysis and Research in Cancers of the Digestive System (ARCAD) database
Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have reduced overall survival compared with patients with metastatic colorectal cancer without peritoneal involvement. Here we further investigated the effect of the number and location of metastases in patients receiving first-line systemic chemotherapy. We analysed individual patient data for previously untreated patients enrolled in 14 phase 3 randomised trials done between 1997 and 2008. Trials were included if protocols explicitly pre-specified and solicited for patients with peritoneal involvement in the trial data collection process or had done a formal peritoneum-focused review of individual pre-treatment scans. We used stratified multivariable Cox models to assess the prognostic associations of peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with overall survival and progression-free survival, adjusting for other key clinical-pathological factors (age, sex, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance score, primary tumour location [colon vs rectum], previous treatment, and baseline BMI). The primary endpoint was difference in overall survival between populations with and without peritoneal metastases. Individual patient data were available for 10 553 patients. 9178 (87%) of 10 553 patients had non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (4385 with one site of metastasis, 4793 with two or more sites of metastasis), 194 (2%) patients had isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer, and 1181 (11%) had peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer and other organ involvement. These groups were similar in age, ethnic origin, and use of targeted treatment. Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer were more likely than those with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer to be women (565 [41%] of 1371 vs 3312 [36%] of 9169 patients; p=0·0003), have colon primary tumours (1116 [84%] of 1334 patients vs 5603 [66%]; p<0·0001), and have performance status of 2 (136 [10%] vs 521 [6%]; p<0·0001). We recorded a higher proportion of patients with mutated BRAF in patients with peritoneal-only (eight [18%] of 44 patients with available data) and peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer with other sites of metastasis (34 [12%] of 289), compared with patients with non-peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer (194 [9%] of 2230; p=0·028 comparing the three groups). Overall survival (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·63–0·91; p=0·003) was better in patients with isolated non-peritoneal sites than in those with isolated peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer. Overall survival of patients with two of more non-peritoneal sites of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·86–1·25, p=0.69) and those with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer plus one other site of metastasis (adjusted HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·89–1·37, p=0·37) was similar to those with isolated peritoneal metastases. Compared with patients with isolated peritoneal metastases, those with peritoneal metastases and two or more additional sites of metastasis had the shortest survival (adjusted HR 1·40; CI 1·14–1·71; p=0·0011). Patients with peritoneal metastatic colorectal cancer have significantly shorter overall survival than those with other isolated sites of metastases. In patients with several sites of metastasis, poor survival is a function of both increased number of metastatic sites and peritoneal involvement. The pattern of metastasis and in particular, peritoneal involvement, results in prognostic heterogeneity of metastatic colorectal cancer. None.
Encorafenib, cetuximab and chemotherapy in BRAF-mutant colorectal cancer: a randomized phase 3 trial
Encorafenib + cetuximab (EC) is approved for previously treated BRAF V600E-mutant metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) based on the BEACON phase 3 study. Historically, first-line treatment of BRAF V600E-mutant mCRC with chemotherapy regimens has had limited efficacy. The phase 3 BREAKWATER study investigated EC+mFOLFOX6 versus standard of care (SOC) in patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E mCRC. The dual primary endpoint of progression-free survival is event driven; data were not mature at data cutoff. BREAKWATER met the other dual primary endpoint of objective response rate, demonstrating significant and clinically relevant improvement in objective response rate (EC+mFOLFOX6: 60.9%; SOC: 40.0%; odds ratio, 2.443; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.403–4.253; 99.8% CI: 1.019–5.855; one-sided P  = 0.0008). Median duration of response was 13.9 versus 11.1 months. At this first interim analysis of overall survival, the hazard ratio was 0.47 (95% CI: 0.318–0.691; repeated CI: 0.166–1.322). Serious adverse event rates were 37.7% versus 34.6%. The safety profiles were consistent with those known for each agent. BREAKWATER demonstrated a significantly improved response rate that was durable for first-line EC+mFOLFOX6 versus SOC in patients with BRAF V600E mCRC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04607421 . As presented at the 2025 ASCO GI Cancers Symposium: in the phase 3 BREAKWATER trial, patients with previously untreated BRAF V600E metastatic colorectal cancer received the BRAF inhibitor encorafenib, the anti-EGFR monoclonal antibody cetuximab and chemotherapy mFOLFOX6 versus investigator’s choice of chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab, leading to an improved objective response rate, with the dual primary endpoint of progression free survival still maturing.
Addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based first-line combination chemotherapy for treatment of advanced colorectal cancer: results of the randomised phase 3 MRC COIN trial
In the Medical Research Council (MRC) COIN trial, the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-targeted antibody cetuximab was added to standard chemotherapy in first-line treatment of advanced colorectal cancer with the aim of assessing effect on overall survival. In this randomised controlled trial, patients who were fit for but had not received previous chemotherapy for advanced colorectal cancer were randomly assigned to oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy (arm A), the same combination plus cetuximab (arm B), or intermittent chemotherapy (arm C). The choice of fluoropyrimidine therapy (capecitabine or infused fluouroracil plus leucovorin) was decided before randomisation. Randomisation was done centrally (via telephone) by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit using minimisation. Treatment allocation was not masked. The comparison of arms A and C is described in a companion paper. Here, we present the comparison of arm A and B, for which the primary outcome was overall survival in patients with KRAS wild-type tumours. Analysis was by intention to treat. Further analyses with respect to NRAS, BRAF, and EGFR status were done. The trial is registered, ISRCTN27286448. 1630 patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups (815 to standard therapy and 815 to addition of cetuximab). Tumour samples from 1316 (81%) patients were used for somatic molecular analyses; 565 (43%) had KRAS mutations. In patients with KRAS wild-type tumours (arm A, n=367; arm B, n=362), overall survival did not differ between treatment groups (median survival 17·9 months [IQR 10·3–29·2] in the control group vs 17·0 months [9·4–30·1] in the cetuximab group; HR 1·04, 95% CI 0·87–1·23, p=0·67). Similarly, there was no effect on progression-free survival (8·6 months [IQR 5·0–12·5] in the control group vs 8·6 months [5·1–13·8] in the cetuximab group; HR 0·96, 0·82–1·12, p=0·60). Overall response rate increased from 57% (n=209) with chemotherapy alone to 64% (n=232) with addition of cetuximab (p=0·049). Grade 3 and higher skin and gastrointestinal toxic effects were increased with cetuximab (14 vs 114 and 67 vs 97 patients in the control group vs the cetuximab group with KRAS wild-type tumours, respectively). Overall survival differs by somatic mutation status irrespective of treatment received: BRAF mutant, 8·8 months (IQR 4·5–27·4); KRAS mutant, 14·4 months (8·5–24·0); all wild-type, 20·1 months (11·5–31·7). This trial has not confirmed a benefit of addition of cetuximab to oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy in first-line treatment of patients with advanced colorectal cancer. Cetuximab increases response rate, with no evidence of benefit in progression-free or overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients or even in patients selected by additional mutational analysis of their tumours. The use of cetuximab in combination with oxaliplatin and capecitabine in first-line chemotherapy in patients with widespread metastases cannot be recommended. Cancer Research UK, Cancer Research Wales, UK Medical Research Council, Merck KGgA.
Encorafenib, Cetuximab, and mFOLFOX6 in BRAF-Mutated Colorectal Cancer
First-line treatment with encorafenib plus cetuximab (EC) with or without chemotherapy (oxaliplatin, leucovorin, and fluorouracil [mFOLFOX6]) for V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, an aggressive subtype with a poor prognosis, was compared with standard care (chemotherapy with or without bevacizumab) in an open-label, phase 3 trial, which showed significance regarding one of the two primary end points, objective response according to blinded independent central review (odds ratio for EC+mFOLFOX6 vs. standard care, 2.44; one-sided P<0.001). This result led to accelerated Food and Drug Administration approval of this investigational combination therapy for V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer, including as first-line therapy. Data on progression-free survival (the second primary end point) and an updated interim analysis of overall survival are now available. We randomly assigned patients with untreated V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer to receive EC, EC+mFOLFOX6, or standard care. The two primary end points were objective response (reported previously) and progression-free survival according to blinded independent central review in the EC+mFOLFOX6 group and the standard-care group. The key secondary end point was overall survival. Significantly longer progression-free survival was seen with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 12.8 vs. 7.1 months; hazard ratio for progression or death, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.68; P<0.001). In an interim analysis, overall survival was significantly longer with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care (median, 30.3 vs. 15.1 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.63; P<0.001). The incidence of serious adverse events during treatment was 46.1% with EC+mFOLFOX6 and 38.9% with standard care. Safety profiles were consistent with those known for each agent. This trial showed significantly longer progression-free survival and overall survival with first-line treatment with EC+mFOLFOX6 than with standard care among patients with V600E-mutated metastatic colorectal cancer. (Funded by Pfizer and others; BREAKWATER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04607421.).
TEX264 coordinates p97- and SPRTN-mediated resolution of topoisomerase 1-DNA adducts
Eukaryotic topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) regulates DNA topology to ensure efficient DNA replication and transcription. TOP1 is also a major driver of endogenous genome instability, particularly when its catalytic intermediate—a covalent TOP1-DNA adduct known as a TOP1 cleavage complex (TOP1cc)—is stabilised. TOP1ccs are highly cytotoxic and a failure to resolve them underlies the pathology of neurological disorders but is also exploited in cancer therapy where TOP1ccs are the target of widely used frontline anti-cancer drugs. A critical enzyme for TOP1cc resolution is the tyrosyl-DNA phosphodiesterase (TDP1), which hydrolyses the bond that links a tyrosine in the active site of TOP1 to a 3’ phosphate group on a single-stranded (ss)DNA break. However, TDP1 can only process small peptide fragments from ssDNA ends, raising the question of how the ~90 kDa TOP1 protein is processed upstream of TDP1. Here we find that TEX264 fulfils this role by forming a complex with the p97 ATPase and the SPRTN metalloprotease. We show that TEX264 recognises both unmodified and SUMO1-modifed TOP1 and initiates TOP1cc repair by recruiting p97 and SPRTN. TEX264 localises to the nuclear periphery, associates with DNA replication forks, and counteracts TOP1ccs during DNA replication. Altogether, our study elucidates the existence of a specialised repair complex required for upstream proteolysis of TOP1ccs and their subsequent resolution. Eukaryotic topoisomerase 1 (TOP1) regulates DNA topology to ensure efficient DNA replication and transcription. Here, the authors reveal insights into the molecular resolution of topoisomerase 1-DNA adducts by TEX264, p97 and SPRTN.
Chemotherapy options in elderly and frail patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (MRC FOCUS2): an open-label, randomised factorial trial
Elderly and frail patients with cancer, although often treated with chemotherapy, are under-represented in clinical trials. We designed FOCUS2 to investigate reduced-dose chemotherapy options and to seek objective predictors of outcome in frail patients with advanced colorectal cancer. We undertook an open, 2 × 2 factorial trial in 61 UK centres for patients with previously untreated advanced colorectal cancer who were considered unfit for full-dose chemotherapy. After comprehensive health assessment (CHA), patients were randomly assigned by minimisation to: 48-h intravenous fluorouracil with levofolinate (group A); oxaliplatin and fluorouracil (group B); capecitabine (group C); or oxaliplatin and capecitabine (group D). Treatment allocation was not masked. Starting doses were 80% of standard doses, with discretionary escalation to full dose after 6 weeks. The two primary outcome measures were: addition of oxaliplatin ([A vs B] + [C vs D]), assessed with progression-free survival (PFS); and substitution of fluorouracil with capecitabine ([A vs C] + [B vs D]), assessed by change from baseline to 12 weeks in global quality of life (QoL). Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline clinical and CHA data were modelled against outcomes with a novel composite measure, overall treatment utility (OTU). This study is registered, number ISRCTN21221452. 459 patients were randomly assigned (115 to each of groups A–C, 114 to group D). Factorial comparison of addition of oxaliplatin versus no addition suggested some improvement in PFS, but the finding was not significant (median 5·8 months [IQR 3·3–7·5] vs 4·5 months [2·8–6·4]; hazard ratio 0·84, 95% CI 0·69–1·01, p=0·07). Replacement of fluorouracil with capecitabine did not improve global QoL: 69 of 124 (56%) patients receiving fluorouracil reported improvement in global QoL compared with 69 of 123 (56%) receiving capecitabine. The risk of having any grade 3 or worse toxic effect was not significantly increased with oxaliplatin (83/219 [38%] vs 70/221 [32%]; p=0·17), but was higher with capecitabine than with fluorouracil (88/222 [40%] vs 65/218 [30%]; p=0·03). In multivariable analysis, fewer baseline symptoms (odds ratio 1·32, 95% CI 1·14–1·52), less widespread disease (1·51, 1·05–2·19), and use of oxaliplatin (0·57, 0·39–0·82) were predictive of better OTU. FOCUS2 shows that with an appropriate design, including reduced starting doses of chemotherapy, frail and elderly patients can participate in a randomised controlled trial. On balance, a combination including oxaliplatin was preferable to single-agent fluoropyrimidines, although the primary endpoint of PFS was not met. Capecitabine did not improve QoL compared with fluorouracil. Comprehensive baseline assessment holds promise as an objective predictor of treatment benefit. Cancer Research UK and the Medical Research Council.
Image-based consensus molecular subtype (imCMS) classification of colorectal cancer using deep learning
ObjectiveComplex phenotypes captured on histological slides represent the biological processes at play in individual cancers, but the link to underlying molecular classification has not been clarified or systematised. In colorectal cancer (CRC), histological grading is a poor predictor of disease progression, and consensus molecular subtypes (CMSs) cannot be distinguished without gene expression profiling. We hypothesise that image analysis is a cost-effective tool to associate complex features of tissue organisation with molecular and outcome data and to resolve unclassifiable or heterogeneous cases. In this study, we present an image-based approach to predict CRC CMS from standard H&E sections using deep learning.DesignTraining and evaluation of a neural network were performed using a total of n=1206 tissue sections with comprehensive multi-omic data from three independent datasets (training on FOCUS trial, n=278 patients; test on rectal cancer biopsies, GRAMPIAN cohort, n=144 patients; and The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA), n=430 patients). Ground truth CMS calls were ascertained by matching random forest and single sample predictions from CMS classifier.ResultsImage-based CMS (imCMS) accurately classified slides in unseen datasets from TCGA (n=431 slides, AUC)=0.84) and rectal cancer biopsies (n=265 slides, AUC=0.85). imCMS spatially resolved intratumoural heterogeneity and provided secondary calls correlating with bioinformatic prediction from molecular data. imCMS classified samples previously unclassifiable by RNA expression profiling, reproduced the expected correlations with genomic and epigenetic alterations and showed similar prognostic associations as transcriptomic CMS.ConclusionThis study shows that a prediction of RNA expression classifiers can be made from H&E images, opening the door to simple, cheap and reliable biological stratification within routine workflows.
A robust multiplex immunofluorescence and digital pathology workflow for the characterisation of the tumour immune microenvironment
Optimisation and validation of a multiplex immunofluorescence (mIF) workflow, from staining to digital image analysis (DIA), ensure assay robustness. Chromogenic immunohistochemistry (IHC) and fluorescent singleplexes are fundamental in this process, particularly when biomarkers are co‐expressed. We describe our experience developing two mIF panels and the various parameters of staining, scanning and DIA to consider when standardising a digital pathology workflow. Multiplex immunofluorescence is a powerful tool for the simultaneous detection of tissue‐based biomarkers, revolutionising traditional immunohistochemistry. The Opal methodology allows up to eight biomarkers to be measured concomitantly without cross‐reactivity, permitting identification of different cell populations within the tumour microenvironment. In this study, we aimed to validate a multiplex immunofluorescence workflow in two complementary multiplex panels and evaluate the tumour immune microenvironment in colorectal cancer (CRC) formalin‐fixed paraffin‐embedded tissue. We stained CRC and tonsil samples using Opal multiplex immunofluorescence on a Leica BOND RX immunostainer. We then acquired images on an Akoya Vectra Polaris and performed multispectral unmixing using inform. Antibody panels were validated on tissue microarray sections containing cores from six normal tissue types, using qupath for image analysis. Comparisons between chromogenic immunohistochemistry and multiplex immunofluorescence on consecutive sections from the same tissue microarray showed significant correlation (rs > 0.9, P‐value < 0.0001), validating both panels. We identified many factors that influenced the quality of the acquired fluorescent images, including biomarker co‐expression, staining order, Opal‐antibody pairing, sample thickness, multispectral unmixing and biomarker detection order during image analysis. Overall, we report the optimisation and validation of a multiplex immunofluorescence process, from staining to image analysis, ensuring assay robustness. Our multiplex immunofluorescence protocols permit the accurate detection of multiple immune markers in various tissue types, using a workflow that enables rapid processing of samples, above and beyond previous workflows.
Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2×2 factorial trial
Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. In this 2×2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m2 on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1–4 and 29–32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5·1 years (IQR 3·9–6·9). 391 of 432 (90·5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89·6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference −0·9%, 95% CI −4·9 to 3·1; p=0·64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3–4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69–77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68–77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·75–1·21; p=0·70). The results of our trial—the largest in anal cancer to date—show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50·4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. Cancer Research UK.