Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Median survival for patients with glioblastoma is less than a year. Standard treatment consists of surgical debulking if feasible followed by temozolomide chemo-radiotherapy. The immune checkpoint inhibitor ipilimumab targets cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4 (CTLA-4) and has shown clinical efficacy in preclinical models of glioblastoma. The aim of this study is to explore the addition of ipilimumab to standard therapy in patients with glioblastoma. Methods/design Ipi-Glio is a phase II, open label, randomised study of ipilimumab with temozolomide (Arm A) versus temozolomide alone (Arm B) after surgery and chemoradiotherapy in patients with recently diagnosed glioblastoma. Planned accrual is 120 patients (Arm A: 80, Arm B: 40). Endpoints include overall survival, 18-month survival, 5-year survival, and adverse events. The trial is currently recruiting in seven centres in the United Kingdom. Trial registration ISRCTN84434175 . Registered 12 November 2018.

Background Tumour cells with BRCA1/2 gene mutations demonstrate increased sensitivity to platinum and poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors. 6-mercaptopurine (6MP) was found to selectively kill BRCA-defective cells in a xenograft model as effectively as the PARP inhibitor AG014699, even after these cells acquired resistance to a PARP inhibitor or cisplatin. Methods This phase II single-arm trial investigated the activity of 6MP 55–75 mg/m 2 per day, and methotrexate 15–20 mg/m 2 per week in advanced breast or platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients with a BRCA1/2 germline mutation, who had progressed after ≥1 previous line of chemotherapy. The primary outcome was objective response including stable disease (SD) as an assessment of clinical benefit rate (CBR), at 8 weeks, by RECIST v1.1. Secondary outcomes included overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results In total, 67 evaluable patients were recruited; 55 ovarian and 11 breast cancer patients. In total, 21 patients had SD (31%), one had a partial response (1.5%); CBR was 33% at 8 weeks. In total, 12/67 patients (18%) had SD at 16 weeks. In total, five ovarian cancer patients had SD for over 200 days. Median OS was 10.3 months (95% CI 6.9–14.5), median PFS 1.9 months (1.7–2.8). Conclusions The overall activity of 6MP and methotrexate in these patients was low; however, there was a small group of patients who appeared to derive longer-term clinical benefit. Trial registration NCT01432145 http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov .

Background Targeting RAS mutant (MT) colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a difficult challenge, mainly due to the pervasiveness of RAS/MEK-mediated feedback loops. Preclinical studies identified MET/STAT3 as an important mediator of resistance to KRAS-MEK1/2 blockade in RAS MT CRC. This dose escalation/expansion study assessed safety and initial efficacy of the MEK1/2 inhibitor binimetinib with MET inhibitor crizotinib in RAS MT advanced CRC patients. Methods In the dose escalation phase, patients with advanced solid tumours received binimetinib with crizotinib, using a rolling- 6 design to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and safety/tolerability. A subsequent dose expansion in RAS MT CRC patients assessed treatment response. Blood samples for pharmacokinetics, MET biomarker and ctDNA analyses, and skin/tumour biopsies for pharmacodynamics, c-MET immunohistochemistry (IHC), MET in situ hybridisation (ISH) and MET DNA-ISH analyses were collected. Results Twenty patients were recruited in 3 cohorts in the dose escalation. The MTD was binimetinib 30 mg B.D, days 1–21 every 28 days, with crizotinib 250 mg O.D continuously. Dose-limiting toxicities included grade ≥ 3 transaminitis, creatinine phosphokinase increases and fatigue. Thirty-six RAS MT metastatic CRC patients were enrolled in the dose expansion. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters showed evidence of target engagement. Across the entire study, the most frequent treatment-related adverse events (TR-AE) were rash (80.4%), fatigue (53.4%) and diarrhoea (51.8%) with grade ≥ 3 TR-AE occurring in 44.6%. Best clinical response within the RAS MT CRC cohort was stable disease in seven patients (24%). Tumour MET super-expression (IHC H-score > 180 and MET ISH + 3) was observed in 7 patients (24.1%), with MET -amplification only present in 1 of these patients. This patient discontinued treatment early during cycle 1 due to toxicity. Patients with high baseline  RAS MT allele frequency had a significant shorter median overall survival compared with that seen for patients with low baseline  KRAS MT allele frequency. Conclusions Combination binimetinib/crizotinib showed a poor tolerability with no objective responses observed in RAS MT advanced CRC patients. EudraCT-Number: 2014–000463 - 40 (20/06/2014: A Sequential Phase I study of MEK1/2 inhibitors PD- 0325901 or Binimetinib combined with cMET inhibitor Crizotinib in RAS Mutant and RAS Wild Type with aberrant c-MET).

Background Single-agent MEK1/2 inhibition has been disappointing in clinical trials targeting RAS mutant (MT) cancers, probably due to upstream receptor activation, resulting in resistance. We previously found that dual c-MET/MEK1/2 inhibition attenuated RAS MT colorectal cancer (CRC) xenograft growth. In this study, we assessed safety of MEK1/2 inhibitor PD-0325901 with c-MET inhibitor crizotinib and determined the optimal biological doses for subsequent clinical trials. Methods In this dose-escalation phase I trial, patients with advanced solid tumours received PD-0325901 with crizotinib, using a rolling-6 design to determine the maximum tolerable dose (MTD) and safety/tolerability. Blood samples for pharmacokinetics and skin biopsies were collected. Results Twenty-five patients were recruited in 4 cohorts up to doses of crizotinib 200 mg B.D continuously with PD-0325901 8 mg B.D, days 1–21 every 28 days. One in six patients exhibited a dose-limiting toxicity at this dose level. Drug-related adverse events were in keeping with single-agent toxicity profiles. The best clinical response was stable disease in seven patients (29%). Conclusions PD-0325901/crizotinib can be given together at pharmacologically-active doses. The MTD for PD-0325901/crizotinib was 8 mg B.D (days 1–21) and 200 mg B.D continuously in a 28-days cycle. The combination was further explored with an alternate MEK1/2 inhibitor in RAS MT CRC patients. EudraCT-Number 2014-000463-40

Objectives This study aimed to investigate the anti‐PD‐1 inhibitor pembrolizumab as a potential agent for use in non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) by conducting a Phase 1 safety run‐in study to assess the safety and tolerability of intravesical pembrolizumab after transurethral resection of the bladder tumour (TURBT). Patients and methods Eligible patients had recurrent NMIBC for which adjuvant treatment post TURBT was a reasonable treatment option, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0–1 and adequate end‐organ function. Pembrolizumab was administered by intravesical instillation once weekly for a total of six doses. Intra‐patient dose escalation was performed in three paired patient cohorts with doses starting at 50 mg and increasing through 100 mg to a maximum of 200 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as a clinically significant, drug‐related, Grade 4 haematological or Grade 3 or higher non‐haematological toxicity occurring within 7 days of administration of the first treatment at a given dose for that patient. Results Six patients were treated with no DLTs seen during dose escalation. Drug‐related AEs were of low grade and included dysuria and fatigue. All patients completed six doses of treatment as planned. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assays did not detect any pembrolizumab in the serum following repeated intravesical administration, and no changes in peripheral immune cell populations were observed. Conclusions Administration of intravesical pembrolizumab was well tolerated and did not raise any safety concerns in patients with NMIBC following TURBT. There was no evidence of systemic absorption or systemic immune effects following intravesical administration. Further studies are required to assess whether intravesical administration has anti‐tumour activity.

Objective To provide an overview of prediction models for risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the general population.Design Systematic review.Data sources Medline and Embase until June 2013.Eligibility criteria for study selection Studies describing the development or external validation of a multivariable model for predicting CVD risk in the general population.Results 9965 references were screened, of which 212 articles were included in the review, describing the development of 363 prediction models and 473 external validations. Most models were developed in Europe (n=167, 46%), predicted risk of fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease (n=118, 33%) over a 10 year period (n=209, 58%). The most common predictors were smoking (n=325, 90%) and age (n=321, 88%), and most models were sex specific (n=250, 69%). Substantial heterogeneity in predictor and outcome definitions was observed between models, and important clinical and methodological information were often missing. The prediction horizon was not specified for 49 models (13%), and for 92 (25%) crucial information was missing to enable the model to be used for individual risk prediction. Only 132 developed models (36%) were externally validated and only 70 (19%) by independent investigators. Model performance was heterogeneous and measures such as discrimination and calibration were reported for only 65% and 58% of the external validations, respectively.Conclusions There is an excess of models predicting incident CVD in the general population. The usefulness of most of the models remains unclear owing to methodological shortcomings, incomplete presentation, and lack of external validation and model impact studies. Rather than developing yet another similar CVD risk prediction model, in this era of large datasets, future research should focus on externally validating and comparing head-to-head promising CVD risk models that already exist, on tailoring or even combining these models to local settings, and investigating whether these models can be extended by addition of new predictors.

Primary spontaneous pneumothorax occurs in otherwise healthy young patients. Optimal management is not defined and often results in prolonged hospitalisation. Data on efficacy of ambulatory options are poor. We aimed to describe the duration of hospitalisation and safety of ambulatory management compared with standard care. In this open-label, randomised controlled trial, adults (aged 16–55 years) with symptomatic primary spontaneous pneumothorax were recruited from 24 UK hospitals during a period of 3 years. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment with either an ambulatory device or standard guideline-based management (aspiration, standard chest tube insertion, or both). The primary outcome was total length of hospital stay including re-admission up to 30 days after randomisation. Patients with available data were included in the primary analysis and all assigned patients were included in the safety analysis. The trial was prospectively registered with the International Standard Randomised Clinical Trials Number, ISRCTN79151659. Of 776 patients screened between July, 2015, and March, 2019, 236 (30%) were randomly assigned to ambulatory care (n=117) and standard care (n=119). At day 30, the median hospitalisation was significantly shorter in the 114 patients with available data who received ambulatory treatment (0 days [IQR 0–3]) than in the 113 with available data who received standard care (4 days [IQR 0–8]; p<0·0001; median difference 2 days [95% CI 1–3]). 110 (47%) of 236 patients had adverse events, including 64 (55%) of 117 patients in the ambulatory care arm and 46 (39%) of 119 in the standard care arm. All 14 serious adverse events occurred in patients who received ambulatory care, eight (57%) of which were related to the intervention, including an enlarging pneumothorax, asymptomatic pulmonary oedema, and the device malfunctioning, leaking, or dislodging. Ambulatory management of primary spontaneous pneumothorax significantly reduced the duration of hospitalisation including re-admissions in the first 30 days, but at the expense of increased adverse events. This data suggests that primary spontaneous pneumothorax can be managed for outpatients, using ambulatory devices in those who require intervention. UK National Institute for Health Research.

AbstractObjectiveTo assess whether randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were registered were less likely to report positive study findings compared with RCTs that were not registered and whether the association varied by funding source.DesignCross sectional study.Study sampleAll primary RCTs published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by November 2013. Trial registration was determined based on the report of a trial registration number in published RCTs or the identification of the trial in a search of trial registries. Trials were separated into prospectively and retrospectively registered studies.Main outcome measureAssociation between trial registration and positive study findings.Results1122 eligible RCTs were identified, of which 593 (52.9%) were registered and 529 (47.1%) were not registered. Overall, registration was marginally associated with positive study findings (adjusted risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 0.98), even with stratification as prospectively and retrospectively registered trials (0.87, 0.74 to 1.03 and 0.88, 0.78 to 1.00, respectively). The interaction term between overall registration and funding source was marginally statistically significant and relative risk estimates were imprecise (0.75, 0.63 to 0.89 for non-industry funded and 1.03, 0.79 to 1.36 for industry funded, P interaction=0.046). Furthermore, a statistically significant interaction was not maintained in sensitivity analyses. Within each stratum of funding source, relative risk estimates were also imprecise for the association between positive study findings and prospective and retrospective registration.ConclusionAmong published RCTs, there was little evidence of a difference in positive study findings between registered and non-registered clinical trials, even with stratification by timing of registration. Relative risk estimates were imprecise in subgroups of non-industry and industry funded trials.

Background The CONSORT Statement is an evidence-informed guideline for reporting randomised controlled trials. A number of extensions have been developed that specify additional information to report for more complex trials. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of using a simple web-based tool (WebCONSORT, which incorporates a number of different CONSORT extensions) on the completeness of reporting of randomised trials published in biomedical publications. Methods We conducted a parallel group randomised trial. Journals which endorsed the CONSORT Statement (i.e. referred to it in the Instruction to Authors) but do not actively implement it (i.e. require authors to submit a completed CONSORT checklist) were invited to participate. Authors of randomised trials were requested by the editor to use the web-based tool at the manuscript revision stage. Authors registering to use the tool were randomised (centralised computer generated) to WebCONSORT or control. In the WebCONSORT group, they had access to a tool allowing them to combine the different CONSORT extensions relevant to their trial and generate a customised checklist and flow diagram that they must submit to the editor. In the control group, authors had only access to a CONSORT flow diagram generator. Authors, journal editors, and outcome assessors were blinded to the allocation. The primary outcome was the proportion of CONSORT items (main and extensions) reported in each article post revision. Results A total of 46 journals actively recruited authors into the trial (25 March 2013 to 22 September 2015); 324 author manuscripts were randomised (WebCONSORT n  = 166; control n  = 158), of which 197 were reports of randomised trials ( n  = 94; n  = 103). Over a third (39%; n  = 127) of registered manuscripts were excluded from the analysis, mainly because the reported study was not a randomised trial. Of those included in the analysis, the most common CONSORT extensions selected were non-pharmacologic ( n  = 43; n  = 50), pragmatic ( n  = 20; n  = 16) and cluster ( n  = 10; n  = 9). In a quarter of manuscripts, authors either wrongly selected an extension or failed to select the right extension when registering their manuscript on the WebCONSORT study site. Overall, there was no important difference in the overall mean score between WebCONSORT (mean score 0.51) and control (0.47) in the proportion of CONSORT and CONSORT extension items reported pertaining to a given study (mean difference, 0.04; 95% CI −0.02 to 0.10). Conclusions This study failed to show a beneficial effect of a customised web-based CONSORT checklist to help authors prepare more complete trial reports. However, the exclusion of a large number of inappropriately registered manuscripts meant we had less precision than anticipated to detect a difference. Better education is needed, earlier in the publication process, for both authors and journal editorial staff on when and how to implement CONSORT and, in particular, CONSORT-related extensions. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01891448 [registered 24 May 2013].

Background: Brain metastases occur in up to 75% of patients with advanced melanoma. Most are treated with whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT), with limited effectiveness. Vandetanib, an inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, epidermal growth factor receptor and rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinases, is a potent radiosensitiser in xenograft models. We compared WBRT with WBRT plus vandetanib in the treatment of patients with melanoma brain metastases. Methods: In this double-blind, multi-centre, phase 2 trial patients with melanoma brain metastases were randomised to receive WBRT (30 Gy in 10 fractions) plus 3 weeks of concurrent vandetanib 100 mg once daily or placebo. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival in brain (PFS brain). The main study was preceded by a safety run-in phase to confirm tolerability of the combination. A post-hoc analysis and literature review considered barriers to recruiting patients with melanoma brain metastases to clinical trials. Results: Twenty-four patients were recruited, six to the safety phase and 18 to the randomised phase. The study closed early due to poor recruitment. Median PFS brain was 3.3 months (90% confidence interval (CI): 1.6–5.6) in the vandetanib group and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2–4.8) in the placebo group ( P =0.34). Median overall survival (OS) was 4.6 months (90% CI: 1.6–6.3) and 2.5 months (90% CI: 0.2–7.2), respectively ( P =0.54). The most frequent adverse events were fatigue, alopecia, confusion and nausea. The most common barrier to study recruitment was availability of alternative treatments. Conclusions: The combination of WBRT plus vandetanib was well tolerated. Compared with WBRT alone, there was no significant improvement in PFS brain or OS, although we are unable to provide a definitive result due to poor accrual. A review of barriers to trial accrual identified several factors that affect study recruitment in this difficult disease area.