Explore the vast range of titles available.

The primary aim of this clinical trial was to determine the feasibility of delivering first-generation CAR T cell therapy to patients with advanced, CEACAM5 + malignancy. Secondary aims were to assess clinical efficacy, immune effector function and optimal dose of CAR T cells. Three cohorts of patients received increasing doses of CEACAM5 + -specific CAR T cells after fludarabine pre-conditioning plus systemic IL2 support post T cell infusion. Patients in cohort 4 received increased intensity pre-conditioning (cyclophosphamide and fludarabine), systemic IL2 support and CAR T cells. No objective clinical responses were observed. CAR T cell engraftment in patients within cohort 4 was significantly higher. However, engraftment was short-lived with a rapid decline of systemic CAR T cells within 14 days. Patients in cohort 4 had transient, acute respiratory toxicity which, in combination with lack of prolonged CAR T cell persistence, resulted in the premature closure of the trial. Elevated levels of systemic IFNγ and IL-6 implied that the CEACAM5-specific T cells had undergone immune activation in vivo but only in patients receiving high-intensity pre-conditioning. Expression of CEACAM5 on lung epithelium may have resulted in this transient toxicity. Raised levels of serum cytokines including IL-6 in these patients implicate cytokine release as one of several potential factors exacerbating the observed respiratory toxicity. Whilst improved CAR designs and T cell production methods could improve the systemic persistence and activity, methods to control CAR T ‘on-target, off-tissue’ toxicity are required to enable a clinical impact of this approach in solid malignancies.

Tisotumab vedotin is a first-in-human antibody–drug conjugate directed against tissue factor, which is expressed across multiple solid tumour types and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. We aimed to establish the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetic profile, and antitumour activity of tisotumab vedotin in a mixed population of patients with locally advanced or metastatic (or both) solid tumours known to express tissue factor. InnovaTV 201 is a phase 1–2, open-label, dose-escalation and dose-expansion study done at 21 centres in the USA and Europe. Patients (aged ≥18 years) had relapsed, advanced, or metastatic cancer of the ovary, cervix, endometrium, bladder, prostate, oesophagus, squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck or non-small-cell lung cancer; an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1; and had relapsed after or were not eligible to receive the available standard of care. No specific tissue factor expression level was required for inclusion. In the dose-escalation phase, patients were treated with tisotumab vedotin between 0·3 and 2·2 mg/kg intravenously once every 3 weeks in a traditional 3 + 3 design. In the dose-expansion phase, patients were treated at the recommended phase 2 dose. The primary endpoint was the incidence of adverse events, including serious adverse events, infusion-related, treatment-related and those of grade 3 or worse, and study drug-related adverse events, analysed in all patients who received at least one dose of tisotumab vedotin (full analysis population). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02001623, and is closed to new participants with follow-up ongoing. Between Dec 9, 2013, and May 18, 2015, 27 eligible patients were enrolled to the dose-escalation phase. Dose-limiting toxicities, including grade 3 type 2 diabetes mellitus, mucositis, and neutropenic fever, were seen at the 2·2 mg/kg dose; therefore, 2·0 mg/kg of tisotumab vedotin intravenously once every 3 weeks was established as the recommended phase 2 dose. Between Oct 8, 2015, and April 26, 2018, 147 eligible patients were enrolled to the dose-expansion phase. The most common (in ≥20% of patients) treatment-emergent adverse events of any grade were epistaxis (102 [69%] of 147 patients), fatigue (82 [56%]), nausea (77 [52%]), alopecia (64 [44%]), conjunctivitis (63 [43%]), decreased appetite (53 [36%]), constipation (52 [35%]), diarrhoea (44 [30%]), vomiting (42 [29%]), peripheral neuropathy (33 [22%]), dry eye (32 [22%]), and abdominal pain (30 [20%]). The most common adverse events of grade 3 or worse were fatigue (14 [10%] of 147 patients), anaemia (eight [5%]), abdominal pain (six [4%]), hypokalaemia (six [4%]), conjunctivitis (five [3%]), hyponatraemia (five [3%]), and vomiting (five [3%]). 67 (46%) of 147 patients had a treatment-emergent serious adverse event. 39 (27%) of 147 patients had a treatment-emergent serious adverse event related to the study drug. Infusion-related reactions occurred in 17 (12%) of 147 patients. Across tumour types, the confirmed proportion of patients who achieved an objective response was 15·6% (95% CI 10·2–22·5; 23 of 147 patients). There were nine deaths across all study phases (three in the dose-escalation phase and six in the dose-expansion phase); only one case of pneumonia in the dose-expansion phase was considered possibly related to study treatment. Tisotumab vedotin has a manageable safety profile with encouraging preliminary antitumour activity across multiple tumour types in heavily pretreated patients. Continued evaluation of tisotumab vedotin is warranted in solid tumours. Genmab A/S.

Background Cancers affecting < 6/100,000/year are classified as rare, but they account for up to 25% of all cancers and are associated with worse 5-year survival than common cancers. Early-phase clinical trials (EPCTs) may represent a viable treatment option for patients with rare cancers as they have evolved significantly with novel designs and the increasing use of precision medicine. Methods A retrospective study of patients with rare cancers referred to a large EPCT team at a UK specialist centre over 5 years (2016–2020) was conducted. Patient demographics, medical and oncological history, genomic variants, EPCT participation, responses and survival outcomes were analysed. Results In total, 240 patients with rare cancers were included. The mean age at diagnosis was 51.7 years (range 16–84), 54.2% of the patients were female. The most frequent rare cancers originated from the digestive system (27.1%), female genital tract (20%) and head and neck (H + N) (18.3%). Molecular profiling was offered to 45.5% of the population, median number of gene alterations was 3 per patient (range 1–20) while actionable gene alterations were reported in 60.2% ( n  = 50) of those with identified gene aberrations. Fifty-one patients participated in EPCTs, with 39.2% achieving SD and 11.8% PR. Median PFS for trial participants was three months (95% CI 1.12 – 4.88) while median OS in the trial patients was 16 months (95% CI 9.10 – 22.90) compared to 7 months for non-trial participants (95% CI 5.50 – 8.51). Finally, poor Royal Marsden Hospital (RMH) prognostic score (2–3) was correlated with worse survival when controlling for age and sex (HR 1.714, 95% CI 1.19 – 2.46, p  = 0.004). Conclusions Participation of patients with rare cancers in EPCTs may be associated with a survival benefit and lead to the development of new treatments for these patients. Moreover, expanded use of precision medicine is paramount as it can inform targeted treatment selection in this heterogenous group.

ObjectivesTo explore the importance of, and barriers to achieving, diversity in early-phase clinical trials.DesignQualitative interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Setting and participantsFive professionals (clinical researchers and methodologists) and three patient and public representatives (those with experience of early-phase clinical trials and/or those from ethnic minority backgrounds) were interviewed between June and August 2022. Participants were identified via their institutional web page, existing contacts or social media (eg, X, formerly known as Twitter).ResultsProfessionals viewed that diversity is not currently considered in all early-phase clinical trials but felt that it should always be taken into account. Such trials are primarily undertaken at a small number of centres, thus limiting the populations they can access. Referrals from clinicians based in the community may increase diversity; however, those referred are often not from underserved groups. Referrals may be hindered by the extra resources required to approach and recruit underserved groups and participants often having to undertake ‘self-driven’ referrals. Patient and public representatives stated that diversity is important in research staff and that potential participants should be informed of the need for diversity. Those from underserved groups may require clarification regarding the potential harms of a treatment, even if these are unknown. Education may improve awareness and perception of early-phase clinical trials. We provide 14 recommendations to improve diversity in early-phase clinical trials.ConclusionsDiversity should be considered in all early-phase trials. Consideration is required regarding the extent of diversity and how it is addressed. The increased resources needed to recruit those from underserved groups may warrant funders to increase the funds to support the recruitment of such participants. The potential harms and societal benefits of the research should be presented to potential participants in a balanced but accurate way to increase transparency.

Background Our aim was to develop a validated Patient Reported Experience Measure (PREM) to capture patient and carer experience during participation in experimental cancer medicine trials (ECM): called PREM-ECM. Methods Mixed method design, consisting of four stages. Questionnaire items were produced for both patients and carers using interviews, focus groups, and cognitive interviews with patients and carers separately. For both patient and carer PREMs, a cross-sectional questionnaire study was conducted to identify final items for inclusion using hierarchical item reduction and Rasch analysis. Questionnaire validity and reliability were assessed, including administration feasibility. Results Initial interview participants suggested the need for three PREMs, two specific to patients: (i) a ‘prior’ questionnaire that captured experiences of trial introduction, screening, consenting, and early trial experience (< 6 weeks post consent); and (ii) ‘on-trial’ that captured experiences of ongoing consent and trial participation; and (iii) a PREM specific for carers. The draft 25-item ‘prior’ questionnaire was completed by 162 patients and 162 patients completed the draft 35-item ‘on-trial’ questionnaire. Hierarchical and Rasch analysis produced a 14-item ‘prior’ list and a 15-item list for ‘on-trial’. Both patient PREM’s demonstrated a good fit to the Rasch model following Bonferroni correction (X 2 p = 0.008). The carer 34-draft item questionnaire was completed by 102 participants. Hierarchical and Rasch analysis produced a 13-item list for PREM-ECM-Carer, with good fit to the Rasch model ( X 2 p  = 0.62). The pilot testing demonstrated the feasibility of all the PREMs in capturing patient and caregiver experiences in routine clinical settings. Conclusions The three PREM-ECM questionnaires will be the first validated experience measures for ECM trial patients and their carers. These questionnaires may be used to assess patients’ and their carers’ experiences of ECM and enable robust comparisons across cancer trial units highlighting areas for service improvement.

Abstract Background Progression-free survival was significantly longer in patients who received avelumab plus axitinib versus sunitinib as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma (aRCC) in a randomized phase III trial. We report long-term safety and efficacy of avelumab plus axitinib as first-line treatment for patients with aRCC from the JAVELIN Renal 100 phase Ib trial (NCT02493751). Materials and Methods In this open-label, multicenter, phase Ib study, patients with untreated aRCC received avelumab 10 mg/kg every 2 weeks plus axitinib 5 mg twice daily or with axitinib for 7 days followed by avelumab plus axitinib. Safety and efficacy were assessed in all patients receiving at least one dose of avelumab or axitinib. Results Overall, 55 patients were enrolled and treated. Median follow-up was 55.7 months (95% CI, 54.5-58.7). Treatment-related adverse events of any grade or grade ≥3 occurred in 54 (98.2%) and 34 (61.8%) patients, respectively. The confirmed objective response rate was 60.0% (95% CI, 45.9-73.0), including complete response in 10.9% of patients. Median duration of response was 35.9 months (95% CI, 12.7-52.9); the probability of response was 65.8% (95% CI, 46.7-79.4) at 2 years. Median progression-free survival was 8.3 months (95% CI, 5.3-32.0). Median overall survival was not reached (95% CI, 40.8-not estimable); the 5-year overall survival rate was 57.3% (95% CI, 41.2-70.5). Conclusion Five-year follow-up for combination treatment with avelumab plus axitinib in previously untreated patients with aRCC showed long-term clinical activity with no new safety signals, supporting use of this regimen within its approved indication in clinical practice (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02493751). Based on the results of the JAVELIN Renal 101 trial, avelumab plus axitinib has been approved as first-line treatment for advanced renal cell carcinoma. To provide long-term safety and efficacy data, this article reports 5-year follow-up results from the JAVELIN Renal 100 phase Ib trial.

Background Use of wearable vital signs sensors (WVSSs) to monitor hospitalised patients is growing but uncertainty exists about how such sensors should be adopted into existing practice. The aim of this observational study was to determine the completeness of data capture and accuracy of measurements recorded by a suite of WVSSs. The implications of using such measurements to derive early warning scores was also assessed. Methods Adult inpatients with Covid-19 wore four WVSSs recording heart rate/respiratory rate (HR/RR), oxygen saturation (SpO 2 ), axillary temperature and blood pressure (BP). Wearable vitals were paired with traditional vitals (measured by nurses) recorded concurrently. The accuracy of the wearable vitals was assessed using traditional vitals as the reference. National early warning (NEWS2) scores were calculated using wearable and traditional vitals. Results Forty-eight patients were monitored for 204 days with the sensors. Median sensor wear was 3.9(IQR:1.7–5.9), 3.9(IQR:1.6–5.9) and 3.8(IQR:0.9–5.9) days for HR/RR, temperature and SpO 2 respectively. The BP cuff was worn for median 1.9(IQR:0.9–3.8) days in 33 patients. Length of hospital stay was 8(IQR:6–13) days. Completeness of data capture was 84% for HR/RR, 98% for temperature, 72% for SpO 2 and 36% for BP. There were 1633 HR, 1614 RR, 1412 temperature, 1294 SpO 2 and 59 BP wearable-traditional measurement pairs. 59.7% of HR pairs were within ± 5 bpm, 38.5% of RR pairs within ± 3breaths/min, 24.4% of temperature pairs within ± 0.3℃, 32.9% of SpO 2 pairs within ± 2% and 39.0% of BP pairs within ± 10 mmHg. Agreement between wearable and traditional RRs was poor at high RRs. In a ward setting, 613 NEWS2 scores were calculated using wearable-traditional HR, RR, temperature and SpO 2 pairs. The median NEWS2 traditional was 1(IQR:1–2) and the median NEWS2 wearable was 4(IQR:3–6). Using traditional NEWS2 alerts as a reference, 86% (225/262) of wearable NEWS2 5 + alerts and 89% (82/92) of wearable NEWS2 7 + alerts were false positives. Conclusions Agreement between vital signs recorded by wearable sensors and concurrent traditional vitals is poor. In this context, data from wearable sensors should not be used in existing track and trigger systems. Trial registration The COSMIC-19 study was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration: NCT04581031, date of registration: Oct 6th 2020).

Introduction Adoptive cell therapy (ACT) is a rapidly evolving field. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) allow patients to report the impact of treatment on their quality of life during and after treatment. The systematic review aims to characterise the breadth of PROs utilised in ACT cancer care and provide guidance for the use of PROs in this patient population in the future. Methods A systematic search was conducted (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL) in August 2021 by two reviewers. Search terms covered the following: “adoptive cell therapy”, “patient-reported outcomes” and “cancer”. Studies were included if they used a PRO measure to report the impact of ACT. The methodological quality of PROs was assessed. Forward and backward reference searching was conducted of any relevant papers. A quality grading scale was applied based on Cochrane and Revenson criteria for classification of high-quality studies. Key data from the studies and the included PROs was extracted by two researchers and tabulated. Results One-hundred nine papers were identified; 11 papers were included. The majority of studies were single-arm trials or observational studies. Twenty-two different PROs were identified; none was ACT specific. The PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D were most commonly used. Few studies collected PRO data in the first 1–2 weeks. Four studies followed patients up for over a year, and a further four studies followed patients for approximately 3 months. Discussion None of the PROs identified have been designed specifically for ACT. Appropriateness of existing instruments should be considered. It should be considered whether it is appropriate to collect data more frequently in the acute stage and then less frequently during follow-up. It should be considered if one tool is suitable at all time points or if the tool should be adapted depending on time since treatment. More research is needed to identify the exact timings of PRO assessments, and qualitative work with patients is needed to determine the most important issues for them throughout the treatment and follow-up.

Purpose Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer are increasingly being offered comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) to determine whether they are eligible for biomarker‐informed treatment. The communication of CGP results to patients can be suboptimal and associated with patient anxiety. This study explores patient, clinician and public experiences of CGP and preferred methods of communicating results. Methods Focus groups were held with patients and carers, with the resulting data evaluated by thematic analysis. Concurrently, a questionnaire was designed and distributed to 60 clinicians involved in CGP studies. Results Twenty‐four patients with a current/previous cancer diagnosis and 10 carers attended the focus groups. Experience with CGP was minimal and often limited to what participants had read on the internet. Patients/carers felt the delivery of results was very complicated and emphasised emotional facets to communicating CGP results and the wish for delivery to be tailored to them. Questionnaire responses were received from 10 UK sites. 92% of clinicians ensured patients received their CGP results, with the majority (57%) returning all CGP results, but 30% would only report on actionable mutations. Results were delivered face to face by 38% of clinicians, while other methods included letters, phone calls, or a combination of approaches. Many clinicians expressed an interest in receiving training on how to feedback CGP results. Conclusion There is a need to develop and implement a standardised approach to returning CGP results, as well as increasing healthcare professional education and confidence with interpreting CGP. Due to the increasing access to CGP as part of routine healthcare, it is essential clinicians feel confident to interpret this information and that patients have results returned to them in an understandable format.