Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Research Articles

MOSUNETUZUMAB DEMONSTRATES DURABLE RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA AND ≥2 PRIOR THERAPIES: UPDATED ANALYSIS OF A PIVOTAL PHASE II STUDY

MOSUNETUZUMAB DEMONSTRATES DURABLE RESPONSES IN PATIENTS WITH RELAPSED/REFRACTORY FOLLICULAR LYMPHOMA AND ≥2 PRIOR THERAPIES: UPDATED ANALYSIS OF A PIVOTAL PHASE II STUDY

The impact of publicly funded immunization programs on human papillomavirus vaccination in boys and girls: An observational study

Reaching and maintaining high global human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine uptake has been challenging. The impact of publicly funded HPV immunization programs and the interplay of sociodemographic, psychosocial and policy factors in maximizing vaccination is poorly understood. This observational study examined the impact of introducing publicly funded school-based HPV vaccination programs for boys directly on uptake in boys and indirectly on uptake in girls, while concurrently examining other important sociodemographic and psychosocial factors. Data were collected from a national, longitudinal sample of Canadian parents of children aged 9-16 years during August-September 2016 (T1) and June-July 2017 (T2). Participants completed an online questionnaire measuring sociodemographic characteristics, vaccine knowledge and attitudes, health care provider recommendation, and HPV vaccine uptake. Analyses were conducted separately for parents of boys and girls using logistic regression analyses at T1 and T2. Jurisdictions with HPV vaccine funding for boys at both time-points were compared to those with funding at neither time-points and those that introduced funding between time-points. The sample included parents of boys (n=716) and girls (n=843). In multivariable analyses, jurisdictions with funding for boys at both time-points had higher odds of vaccination (adjusted odds ratio, T1 = 10.18, T2 = 11.42; 95% confidence interval, T1 = 3.08-33.58, T2 = 5.61-23.23) than jurisdictions without funding at both time-points; however, funded jurisdictions did not have higher odds of vaccination compared to jurisdictions that newly introduced funding for boys. Vaccination was associated with consistent determinants in boys and girls including child's age, health care provider recommendation, perceived vaccine harms, and perceived vaccine affordability. This gender-sensitive analysis highlights the interplay of sociodemographic, psychosocial, and policy factors that can improve HPV vaccination. Publicly funded school-based programs are an impactful strategy to increase vaccine uptake. This work was supported by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (#704,036). GKS was supported by the Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarship and Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Scholarship programs. The funders of this work had no role in the data collection, analysis, or interpretation, or any aspect pertinent to the study.

1929P - Genomic characterisation of locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma

BackgroundLocally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma (LAPC) is treated similarly to metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). It has previously been thought that SMAD4 is wildtype (WT) in LAPC. We describe results of whole genome (WGS) and RNA sequencing (RNAseq) of LAPC and MPC tumours. MethodsPatients with LAPC and MPC were enrolled in the COMPASS clinical trial (NCT02750657). Clinical, demographic and survival data were collected. WGS and RNAseq was performed along with modified Moffitt classification (basal-like or classical). ResultsPatients with LAPC (n=27) and MPC (n=163) did not differ in terms of age, gender or smoking status. Patients with LAPC had lower BMI (p=0.005) than those with MPC. More LAPC patients received FOLFIRINOX than those with MPC (p=0.003). LAPC/MPC tumours had similar rates of KRAS, p53, CDKN2A and SMAD4 mutations and similar levels of ploidy, indels, neoantigens and single nucleotide variants. There was a slight increase in structural variants in MPC vs. LAPC (p=0.05). No LAPC tumours were homologous recombination deficient (HRD) or KRAS WT, compared with 10 MPC (HRD) and 15 MPC (KRAS-WT). LAPC patients with SMAD4 mutations had higher baseline Ca19.9 than those with WT SMAD4 (p=0.0048). All LAPC were Moffitt classical subtype on RNAseq, compared with 77% of MPC (p=0.0049). LAPC patients had improved OS compared with MPC patients on univariate analysis (p=0.04) but not on multivariate analysis. There was no difference in OS between LAPC and classical subtype MPC, or between LAPC patients with/without SMAD4 mutations. ConclusionsPatients with LAPC have a similar molecular profile to those with MPC with similar rates of altered drivers including SMAD4. LAPC tumours are more likely to be Moffitt classical subtype and have similar OS to classical subtype MPC. LAPC patients with SMAD4 mutations had similar OS to those with WT SMAD4. These data suggest that patients with LAPC should be treated similarly to those with classical-subtype MPC. Clinical trial identificationNCT02750657. Legal entity responsible for the studyThe authors. FundingGovernment of Ontario, Wallace McCain Centre for Pancreatic Cancer, Princess Margaret Cancer Foundation, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute Grant (702316), Pancreatic Cancer Canada Foundation, Canadian Friends of the Hebrew University (Alex U. Soyka), Lebovic Chair in Hepatobiliary/Pancreatic Surgical Oncology. DisclosureAll authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

Adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): final results of an international, open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

SummaryBackgroundAlthough women with endometrial cancer generally have a favourable prognosis, those with high-risk disease features are at increased risk of recurrence. The PORTEC-3 trial was initiated to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy during and after radiotherapy (chemoradiotherapy) versus pelvic radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer.MethodsPORTEC-3 was an open-label, international, randomised, phase 3 trial involving 103 centres in six clinical trials collaborating in the Gynaecological Cancer Intergroup. Eligible women had high-risk endometrial cancer with FIGO 2009 stage I, endometrioid-type grade 3 with deep myometrial invasion or lymph-vascular space invasion (or both), endometrioid-type stage II or III, or stage I to III with serous or clear cell histology. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy in 1·8 Gy fractions given on 5 days per week) or radiotherapy and chemotherapy (consisting of two cycles of cisplatin 50 mg/m2 given during radiotherapy, followed by four cycles of carboplatin AUC5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) using a biased-coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and failure-free survival. We used the Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox regression analysis for final analysis by intention to treat and adjusted for stratification factors. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual; follow-up is ongoing. PORTEC-3 is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN14387080, and ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138.Results686 women were enrolled between Nov 23, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013. 660 eligible patients were included in the final analysis, of whom 330 were assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 330 were assigned to radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 60·2 months (IQR 48·1–73·1). 5-year overall survival was 81·8% (95% CI 77·5–86·2) with chemoradiotherapy versus 76·7% (72·1–81·6) with radiotherapy (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·76, 95% CI 0·54–1·06; p=0·11); 5-year failure-free survival was 75·5% (95% CI 70·3–79·9) versus 68·6% (63·1–73·4; HR 0·71, 95% CI 0·53–0·95; p=0·022). Grade 3 or worse adverse events during treatment occurred in 198 (60%) of 330 who received chemoradiotherapy versus 41 (12%) of 330 patients who received radiotherapy (p<0·0001). Neuropathy (grade 2 or worse) persisted significantly more often after chemoradiotherapy than after radiotherapy (20 [8%] women vs one [1%] at 3 years; p<0·0001). Most deaths were due to endometrial cancer; in four patients (two in each group), the cause of death was uncertain. One death in the radiotherapy group was due to either disease progression or late treatment complications; three deaths (two in the chemoradiotherapy group and one in the radiotherapy group) were due to either intercurrent disease or late treatment-related toxicity.InterpretationAdjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy for high-risk endometrial cancer did not improve 5-year overall survival, although it did increase failure-free survival. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer should be individually counselled about this combined treatment. Continued follow-up is needed to evaluate long-term survival.FundingDutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council Project Grant and Cancer Australia, L'Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Napabucasin versus placebo in refractory advanced colorectal cancer: a randomised phase 3 trial

Napabucasin is a first-in-class cancer stemness inhibitor that targets STAT3, which is a poor prognostic factor in colorectal cancer. This study aimed to test napabucasin in advanced colorectal cancer. This study was a double-blind randomised phase 3 trial done at 68 centres in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Patients with advanced colorectal cancer with a good Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (0-1) for whom all available standard therapies had failed were eligible for the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive placebo or napabucasin through a web-based system with a permuted block method, after stratification by ECOG performance status, KRAS status, previous VEGF inhibitor treatment, and time from diagnosis of metastatic disease. Napabucasin 480 mg or matching placebo was taken orally every 12 h. All patients received best supportive care. The primary endpoint was overall survival assessed in an intention-to-treat analysis. This is the final analysis of this trial, which is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01830621. Accrual began on April 15, 2013, and was stopped for futility on May 23, 2014, at which point 282 patients had undergone randomisation (138 assigned to the napabucasin group and 144 to the placebo group). Overall survival did not differ significantly between groups: median overall survival was 4·4 months (95% CI 3·7-4·9) in the napabucasin group and 4·8 months (4·0-5·3) in the placebo group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1·13, 95% CI 0·88-1·46, p=0·34). The safety population included 136 patients in the napabucasin group and 144 patients in the placebo group. More patients who received napabucasin had any grade of treatment-related diarrhoea (108 [79%] of 136 patients), nausea (69 [51%]), and anorexia (52 [38%]) than did patients who received placebo (28 [19%] of 144 patients, 35 [24%], and 23 [16%], respectively). The most common severe (grade 3 or worse) treatment-related adverse events were abdominal pain (five [4%] patients receiving napabucasin vs five [3%] receiving placebo), diarrhoea (21 [15%] vs one [1%]), fatigue (14 [10%] vs eight [6%]), and dehydration (six [4%] vs one [1%]). 251 (89%) patients had data on pSTAT3 expression, of whom 55 (22%) had pSTAT3-positive tumours (29 in the napabucasin group, 26 in the placebo group). In a prespecified biomarker analysis of pSTAT3-positive patients, overall survival was longer in the napabucasin group than in the placebo group (median 5·1 months [95% CI 4·0-7·5] vs 3·0 months [1·7-4·1]; HR 0·41, 0·23-0·73, p=0·0025). Although there was no difference in overall survival between groups in the overall unselected population, STAT3 might be an important target for the treatment of colorectal cancer with elevated pSTAT3 expression. Nevertheless, these results require validation. Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and Boston Biomedical.

Palliative chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for dysphagia in advanced oesophageal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial (TROG 03.01)

A short course of radiotherapy is commonly prescribed for palliative relief of malignant dysphagia in patients with incurable oesophageal cancer. We compared chemoradiotherapy with radiotherapy alone for dysphagia relief in the palliative setting. This multicentre randomised controlled trial included patients with advanced or metastatic oesophageal cancer who were randomly assigned (1:1) through a computer-generated adaptive biased coin design to either palliative chemoradiotherapy or radiotherapy alone for treatment of malignant dysphagia at 22 hospitals in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the UK. Eligible patients had biopsy-proven oesophageal cancer that was unsuitable for curative treatment, symptomatic dysphagia, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2, and adequate haematological and renal function. Patients were stratified by hospital, dysphagia score (Mellow scale 1-4), and presence of metastases. The radiotherapy dose was 35 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks for patients in Australia and New Zealand and 30 Gy in ten fractions over 2 weeks for patients in Canada and the UK. Chemotherapy consisted of one cycle of intravenous cisplatin (either 80 mg/m2 on day 1 or 20 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy at clinician's discretion) and intravenous fluorouracil 800 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 of radiotherapy in week 1. Patients were assessed weekly during treatment. The primary endpoint was dysphagia relief (defined as ≥1 point reduction on the Mellow scale at 9 weeks and maintained 4 weeks later), and key secondary endpoints were dysphagia progression-free survival (defined as a worsening of at least 1 point on the Mellow scale from baseline or best response) and overall survival. These endpoints were analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00193882. This trial is closed. Between July 7, 2003, and March 21, 2012, 111 patients were randomly assigned to chemoradiotherapy and 109 patients to radiotherapy. One patient in the chemoradiotherapy group was omitted from analysis because of ineligibility. 50 (45%, 95% CI 36-55) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and 38 (35%, 26-44) in the radiotherapy group obtained dysphagia relief (difference 10·6%, 95% CI -2 to 23; p=0·13). Median dysphagia progression-free survival was 4·1 months (95% CI 3·5-4·8) versus 3·4 months (3·1-4·3) in the chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy groups, respectively (p=0·58), and median overall survival was 6·9 months (95% CI 5·1-8·3) versus 6·7 months (4·9-8·0), respectively (p=0·88). Of the 211 patients who commenced radiotherapy, grade 3-4 acute toxicity occurred in 38 (36%) patients in the chemoradiotherapy group and in 17 (16%) patients in the radiotherapy group (p=0·0017). Anaemia, thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, oesophagitis, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and mucositis were significantly worse in patients who had chemoradiotherapy than in patients who had radiotherapy. Palliative chemoradiotherapy showed a modest, but not statistically significant, increase in dysphagia relief compared with radiotherapy alone, with minimal improvement in dysphagia progression-free survival and overall survival with chemoradiotherapy but at a cost of increased toxicity. A short course of radiotherapy alone should be considered a safe and well tolerated treatment for malignant dysphagia in the palliative setting. National Health and Medical Research Council, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Canadian Cancer Trials Group, Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group, and Cancer Australia.

Postoperative chemoradiotherapy for elderly patients with glioblastoma: worsening frailty or increasing survival?

Recently published by Perry and colleagues, the data of the trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482677) funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (CCSRI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and by the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (Australia and New Zealand) (1) provided further insight into the role of combined chemoradiotherapy in 65 years of age or older patients with glioblastoma (GBM) and finally answer whether chemotherapy concomitant to radiotherapy (RT) could yield survival benefit or potentially impairing quality of life for these patients.

Concurrent once-daily versus twice-daily chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer (CONVERT): an open-label, phase 3, randomised, superiority trial

SummaryBackgroundConcurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.MethodsThe CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin–etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.FindingsBetween April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35–58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24–34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21–31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95–1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50–62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45–57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI −3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3–4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3–4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3–4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).InterpretationSurvival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.FundingCancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups).

Implementation of key demand-reduction measures of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control and change in smoking prevalence in 126 countries: an association study

The WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) has mobilised efforts among 180 parties to combat the global tobacco epidemic. This study examined the association between highest-level implementation of key tobacco control demand-reduction measures of the WHO FCTC and smoking prevalence over the treaty's first decade. We used WHO data from 126 countries to examine the association between the number of highest-level implementations of key demand-reduction measures (WHO FCTC articles 6, 8, 11, 13, and 14) between 2007 and 2014 and smoking prevalence estimates between 2005 and 2015. McNemar tests were done to test differences in the proportion of countries that had implemented each of the measures at the highest level between 2007 and 2014. Four linear regression models were computed to examine the association between the predictor variable (the change between 2007 and 2014 in the number of key measures implemented at the highest level), and the outcome variable (the percentage point change in tobacco smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015). Between 2007 and 2014, there was a significant global increase in highest-level implementation of all key demand-reduction measures. The mean smoking prevalence for all 126 countries was 24·73% (SD 10·32) in 2005 and 22·18% (SD 8·87) in 2015, an average decrease in prevalence of 2·55 percentage points (SD 5·08; relative reduction 10·31%). Unadjusted linear regression showed that increases in highest-level implementations of key measures between 2007 and 2014 were significantly associated with a decrease in smoking prevalence between 2005 and 2015). Each additional measure implemented at the highest level was associated with an average decrease in smoking prevalence of 1·57 percentage points (95% CI -2·51 to -0·63, p=0·001) and an average relative decrease of 7·09% (-12·55 to -1·63, p=0·011). Controlling for geographical subregion, income level, and WHO FCTC party status, the per-measure decrease in prevalence was 0·94 percentage points (-1·76 to -0·13, p=0·023) and an average relative decrease of 3·18% (-6·75 to 0·38, p=0·079). This association was consistent across all three control variables. Implementation of key WHO FCTC demand-reduction measures is significantly associated with lower smoking prevalence, with anticipated future reductions in tobacco-related morbidity and mortality. These findings validate the call for strong implementation of the WHO FCTC in the WHO's Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Non-communicable Diseases 2013-2020, and in advancing the UN's Sustainable Development Goal 3, setting a global target of reducing tobacco use and premature mortality from non-communicable diseases by a third by 2030. Health Canada, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ontario Institute for Cancer Research and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Short-Course Radiation plus Temozolomide in Elderly Patients with Glioblastoma

BackgroundGlioblastoma is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly. Survival has been shown to increase among patients 70 years of age or younger when temozolomide chemotherapy is added to standard radiotherapy (60 Gy over a period of 6 weeks). In elderly patients, more convenient shorter courses of radiotherapy are commonly used, but the benefit of adding temozolomide to a shorter course of radiotherapy is unknown.MethodsWe conducted a trial involving patients 65 years of age or older with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either radiotherapy alone (40 Gy in 15 fractions) or radiotherapy with concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide.ResultsA total of 562 patients underwent randomization, 281 to each group. The median age was 73 years (range, 65 to 90). The median overall survival was longer with radiotherapy plus temozolomide than with radiotherapy alone (9.3 months vs. 7.6 months; hazard ratio for death, 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56 to 0.80; P<0.001), as was the median progression-free survival (5.3 months vs. 3.9 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.60; P<0.001). Among 165 patients with methylated O6-methylguanine–DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) status, the median overall survival was 13.5 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.7 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.73; P<0.001). Among 189 patients with unmethylated MGMT status, the median overall survival was 10.0 months with radiotherapy plus temozolomide and 7.9 months with radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio for death, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.56 to 1.01; P=0.055; P=0.08 for interaction). Quality of life was similar in the two trial groups.ConclusionsIn elderly patients with glioblastoma, the addition of temozolomide to short-course radiotherapy resulted in longer survival than short-course radiotherapy alone. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00482677.)

Health-related quality of life in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma (EORTC 22033-26033): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 intergroup study

Temozolomide chemotherapy versus radiotherapy in patients with a high-risk low-grade glioma has been shown to have no significant effect on progression-free survival. If these treatments have a different effect on health-related quality of life (HRQOL), it might affect the choice of therapy. We postulated that temozolomide compromises HRQOL and global cognitive functioning to a lesser extent than does radiotherapy. We did a prospective, phase 3, randomised controlled trial at 78 medical centres and large hospitals in 19 countries. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with histologically confirmed diffuse (WHO grade II) astrocytoma, oligodendroglioma, or mixed oligoastrocytoma, with a WHO performance status of 2 or lower, without previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy, who needed active treatment other than surgery. We randomly assigned eligible patients (1:1) using a minimisation technique, stratified by WHO performance status (0-1 vs 2), age (<40 years vs ≥40 years), presence of contrast enhancement on MRI, chromosome 1p status (deleted vs non-deleted vs indeterminate), and the treating medical centre, to receive either radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1·8 Gy for 5 days per week up to 6·5 weeks) or temozolomide chemotherapy (75 mg/m2 daily, for 21 of 28 days [one cycle] for 12 cycles). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (results published separately); here, we report the results for two key secondary endpoints: HRQOL (assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer's [EORTC] QLQ-C30 [version 3] and the EORTC Brain Cancer Module [QLQ-BN20]) and global cognitive functioning (assessed using the Mini-Mental State Examination [MMSE]). We did analyses on the intention-to-treat population. This study is closed and is registered at EudraCT, number 2004-002714-11, and at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00182819. Between Dec 6, 2005, and Dec 21, 2012, we randomly assigned 477 eligible patients to either radiotherapy (n=240) or temozolomide chemotherapy (n=237). The difference in HRQOL between the two treatment groups was not significant during the 36 months' follow-up (mean between group difference [averaged over all timepoints] 0·06, 95% CI -4·64 to 4·75, p=0·98). At baseline, 32 (13%) of 239 patients who received radiotherapy and 32 (14%) of 236 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. After randomisation, five (8%) of 63 patients who received radiotherapy and three (6%) of 54 patients who received temozolomide chemotherapy and who could be followed up for 36 months had impaired cognitive function, according to the MMSE scores. No significant difference was recorded between the groups for the change in MMSE scores during the 36 months of follow-up. The effect of temozolomide chemotherapy or radiotherapy on HRQOL or global cognitive functioning did not differ in patients with low-grade glioma. These results do not support the choice of temozolomide alone over radiotherapy alone in patients with high-risk low-grade glioma. Merck Sharp & Dohme-Merck & Co, National Cancer Institute, Swiss Cancer League, National Institute for Health Research, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, National Health and Medical Research Council, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Cancer Research Fund.

Innovative approach for increasing physical activity among breast cancer survivors: protocol for Project MOVE, a quasi-experimental study

IntroductionPhysical activity is a cost-effective and non-pharmaceutical strategy that can help mitigate the physical and psychological health challenges associated with breast cancer survivorship. However, up to 70% of women breast...

Toxicity and quality of life after adjuvant chemoradiotherapy versus radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer (PORTEC-3): an open-label, multicentre, randomised, phase 3 trial

About 15% of patients with endometrial cancer have high-risk features and are at increased risk of distant metastases and endometrial cancer-related death. We designed the PORTEC-3 trial to investigate the benefit of adjuvant chemoradiotherapy compared with radiotherapy alone for women with high-risk endometrial cancer. PORTEC-3 was a multicentre, open-label, randomised, international trial. Women with high-risk endometrial cancer were randomly allocated (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (48·6 Gy) in 1·8 Gy fractions five times a week or chemoradiotherapy (two cycles concurrent cisplatin 50 mg/m(2) and four adjuvant cycles of carboplatin area under the curve [AUC] 5 and paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2)) using a biased coin minimisation procedure with stratification for participating centre, lymphadenectomy, stage of cancer, and histological type. The primary endpoints of the PORTEC-3 trial were overall survival and failure-free survival analysed in the intention-to-treat population. This analysis focuses on 2-year toxicity and health-related quality of life as secondary endpoints; analysis was done according to treatment received. Health-related quality of life was assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) the cervix cancer module and chemotherapy and neuropathy subscales of the ovarian cancer module at baseline, after radiotherapy and at 6, 12, 24, 36, and 60 months after randomisation. Adverse events were graded with Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. The study was closed on Dec 20, 2013, after achieving complete accrual, and follow-up remains ongoing for the primary outcomes analysis. This trial is registered with ISRCTN.com, number ISRCTN14387080, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00411138. Between Sept 15, 2006, and Dec 20, 2013, 686 women were randomly allocated in the PORTEC-3 trial. Of these, 660 met eligibility criteria, and 570 (86%) were evaluable for health-related quality of life. Median follow-up was 42·3 months (IQR 25·8-55·1). At completion of radiotherapy and at 6 months, EORTC QLQ-C30 functioning scales were significantly lower (worse functioning) and health-related quality of life symptom scores higher (worse symptoms) for the chemoradiotherapy group compared with radiotherapy alone, improving with time. At 12 and 24 months, global health or quality of life was similar between groups, whereas physical functioning scores remained slightly lower in patients who received chemoradiotherapy compared with patients who received radiotherapy alone. At 24 months, 48 (25%) of 194 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group reported severe tingling or numbness compared with 11 (6%) of 170 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001). Grade 2 or worse adverse events were found during treatment in 309 (94%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 145 (44%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group, and grade 3 or worse events were found in 198 (61%) of 327 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group versus 42 (13%) of 326 patients in the radiotherapy alone group (p<0·0001), with most of the grade 3 adverse events being haematological (45%). At 12 and 24 months, no significant differences in grade 3 or worse adverse events were found between groups; only grade 2 or higher sensory neuropathy adverse events persisted at 24 months (25 [10%] of 240 patients in the chemoradiotherapy group vs one [<1%] of 247 patients in the radiotherapy alone group; p<0·0001). Despite the increased physician and patient-reported toxicities, this schedule of adjuvant chemotherapy given during and after radiotherapy in patients with high-risk endometrial cancer is feasible, with rapid recovery after treatment, but with persistence of patient-reported sensory neurological symptoms in 25% of patients. We await the analysis of primary endpoints before final conclusions are made. Dutch Cancer Society, Cancer Research UK, National Health and Medical Research Council, Project Grant, Cancer Australia Grant, Italian Medicines Agency, and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

WE‐H‐209‐00: Carson/Zagzebski Distinguished Lectureship: Image Guided Ultrasound Therapy

Focused ultrasound has been shown to be the only method that allows noninvasive thermal coagulation of tissues and recently this potential has been explored for image‐guided drug delivery. In this presentation, the advances in ultrasound phased array technology for energy delivery, exposure monitoring and control will be discussed. Experimental results from novel multi‐frequency transmit/receive arrays will be presented. In addition, the feasibility of fully electronically focused and steered high power arrays with many thousands of transducer elements will be discussed. Finally, some of the recent clinical and preclinical results for the treatment of brain disease will be reviewed. Learning Objectives: Introduce FUS therapy principles and modern techniques Discuss use of FUS for drug delivery Cover the technology required to deliver FUS and monitor therapy Present clinical examples of the uses of these techniquesThis research was supported by funding from The Canada Research Chair Program, Grants from CIHR and NIH (no. EB003268).; K. Hynynen, Canada Foundation for Innovation; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Focused Ultrasound Surgery Foundation; Canada Research Chair Program; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Ontario Research Fund; National Institutes of Health; Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute; The Weston Brain Institute; Harmonic Medical; Focused Ultrasound Instruments

WE‐H‐209‐01: Advances in Ultrasound Therapy

Focused ultrasound has been shown to be the only method that allows noninvasive thermal coagulation of tissues and recently this potential has been explored for image‐guided drug delivery. In this presentation, the advances in ultrasound phased array technology for energy delivery, exposure monitoring and control will be discussed. Experimental results from novel multi‐frequency transmit/receive arrays will be presented. In addition, the feasibility of fully electronically focused and steered high power arrays with many thousands of transducer elements will be discussed. Finally, some of the recent clinical and preclinical results for the treatment of brain disease will be reviewed. Learning Objectives: Introduce FUS therapy principles and modern techniques Discuss use of FUS for drug delivery Cover the technology required to deliver FUS and monitor therapy Present clinical examples of the uses of these techniquesThis research was supported by funding from The Canada Research Chair Program, Grants from CIHR and NIH (no. EB003268).; K. Hynynen, Canada Foundation for Innovation; Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Focused Ultrasound Surgery Foundation; Canada Research Chair Program; Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Ontario Research Fund; National Institutes of Health; Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute; The Weston Brain Institute; Harmonic Medical; Focused Ultrasound Instruments

Evaluation Of Dietary Assessment Tools: Does ‘Validated’ Mean What We Think It Means?

Evaluation of the extent to which self‐report dietary assessment tools accurately capture true intake is critical to informing the collection of dietary intake data that can advance our understanding of diet and health. Such evaluation is challenging due to the lack of unbiased reference measures for dietary intake, forcing reliance on self‐report (and thus error‐prone) measures as comparators. Depending on the type of instrument and its intended use, evaluation is also complicated by the need to test tools in different settings and populations. The objective of this work is to examine challenges in evaluating dietary assessment tools and the ways in which the findings of validation studies are interpreted. We draw upon a scoping review of Canadian studies of free‐living adult populations that included an assessment of dietary intake to illustrate the extent and ways in which validity of tools are addressed. Of 58 studies that used a frequency questionnaire or screener to assess diet, tools were reported to have been validated for the given study sample in a small subgroup. In close to two‐thirds, authors reported that the tool has been validated, in some cases with few details on how it was evaluated and in what population(s). In close to a third, there was little attention to whether tools used have been tested. Given that self‐report instruments cannot be expected to perfectly capture true intake, more nuanced discussions of what it means for a tool to be ‘valid’ as well as the implications of limitations in tools for study results appear warranted. Such discussions are key to improving the quality of self‐reported dietary intake data.Support or Funding InformationThis scoping review was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (137238) and Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute (702855).

Prognostic value of medulloblastoma extent of resection after accounting for molecular subgroup: a retrospective integrated clinical and molecular analysis

SummaryBackgroundIncomplete surgical resection of medulloblastoma is controversially considered a marker of high-risk disease; driving aggressive surgical resections, “second-look” surgeries, and/or intensified chemoradiotherapy. All prior publications evaluating the clinical importance of extent of resection (EOR) failed to account for molecular subgroup. We analysed the prognostic value of EOR across 787 medulloblastoma samples in a subgroup-specific manner.MethodsWe retrospectively identified patients from Medulloblastoma Advanced Genomics International Consortium (MAGIC) centres with a histological diagnosis of medulloblastoma and complete extent of resection and survival data. Specimens were collected from 35 international institutions. Medulloblastoma subgroup affiliation was determined using nanoString gene expression profiling on frozen or formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissues. Extent of resection (EOR) based on post-operative imaging was classified as gross total (GTR), near total (NTR, <1·5cm2), or subtotal (STR, ≥ 1·5cm2). Overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) multivariable analyses including subgroup, age, metastatic status, geographical location of therapy (North America/Australia vs world), and adjuvant therapy regimen were performed. The primary endpoint was the impact of surgical EOR by molecular subgroup and other clinical variables on OS and PFS.Findings787 medulloblastoma patients (86 WNT, 242 SHH, 163 Group 3, and 296 Group 4) were included in a multivariable Cox model of PFS and OS. The marked benefit of EOR in the overall cohort was greatly attenuated after including molecular subgroup in the multivariable analysis. There was an observed PFS benefit of GTR over STR (hazard ration [HR] 1·45, 95% CI; 1·07–1·96, p=0·02) but there was no observed PFS or OS benefit of GTR over NTR (HR 1·05, 0·71–1·53, p=0·82 and HR 1·14, 0·75–1·72, p=0.55). There was no statistically significant survival benefit to greater EOR for patients with WNT, SHH, or Group 3 patients (HR 1·03, 0·67–1·58, p=0·9 for STR vs. GTR). There was a PFS benefit for GTR over STR in patients with Group 4 medulloblastoma (HR1·97, 1·22–3·17, p=0·01), particularly those with metastatic disease (HR 2·22, 1–4·93, p=0·05). A nomogram based on this multivariable cox proportional hazards model shows the comparably smaller impact of EOR on relative risk for PFS and OS than subgroup affiliation, metastatic status, radiation dose, and adjuvant chemotherapy.InterpretationThe prognostic benefit of EOR for patients with medulloblastoma is attenuated after accounting for molecular subgroup affiliation. Although maximal safe surgical resection should remain the standard of care, surgical removal of small residual portions of medulloblastoma is not recommended when the likelihood of neurological morbidity is high as there is no definitive benefit to GTR over NTR. Our results suggest a re-evaluation of the long-term implications of intensified craniospinal irradiation (36 Gy) in children with small residual portions of medulloblastoma.FundingFunding Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Terry Fox Research Institute, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Institutes of Health, Pediatric Brain Tumor Foundation, Garron Family Chair in Childhood Cancer Research.

Cediranib in patients with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer (ICON6): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Angiogenesis is a validated clinical target in advanced epithelial ovarian cancer. Cediranib is an oral antiangiogenic vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1-3 inhibitor that has shown antitumour activity in recurrent ovarian cancer. We assessed efficacy and safety of cediranib in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy and as continued maintenance treatment in patients with first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. In this randomised, three-arm, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned patients aged 18 years or older with relapsed platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer at 63 centres in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Spain, and the UK. Participants received up to six cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy (once every 3 weeks) then entered a maintenance phase. Participants were randomly allocated (2:3:3), with five stratification factors and in alternating blocks, to receive placebo alongside chemotherapy and then placebo only maintenance (arm A; reference), cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then placebo only maintenance (arm B; concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg once-daily alongside chemotherapy then cediranib 20 mg once-daily maintenance (arm C; maintenance). Patients continued treatment to progression or excessive toxic effects. The primary efficacy endpoint was progression-free survival between arms A and C. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat. Safety was assessed in all patients who received the allocated study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00532194; the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN68510403; and ANZ Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN1261000016003. We randomly assigned 486 [corrected] women between Nov 13, 2007, and Dec 23, 2011; results presented are for 456 patients randomly assigned subsequent to the 30mg safety phase. During a median of 19·5 months (IQR 14-26) follow-up, 113 (96%) of 118 women assigned to arm A and 141 (86%) of 164 assigned to arm C had disease progression. Median progression-free survival was 11·0 months (95% CI 10·4-11·7) in arm C and 8·7 months (7·7-9·4) in arm A (hazard ratio 0·56, 0·44-0·72, p<0·0001). 156 (90%) of 174 patients in arm B had disease progression, and median progression-free survival was 9·9 months (95% CI 9·4-10·5). Diarrhoea, neutropenia, hypertension, and voice changes were significantly more common, during chemotherapy with cediranib, and diarrhoea, hypothyroidism and voice changes were more common during maintenance. Poor compliance with cediranib was noted during maintenance treatment with toxic effects being the most common cause for discontinuation. Cediranib, when given orally with chemotherapy and continued as maintenance, yielded a meaningful improvement [corrected] in progression-free survival in women with recurrent platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer, albeit with added toxic effects. The positive results in ICON6 could provide women with a new therapeutic option for recurrent ovarian cancer. Assessment of the secondary endpoint of overall survival will need longer follow-up. Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, Cancer Australia, National Gynecological Cancer Centre, and AstraZeneca.

Dexamethasone in the prophylaxis of radiation-induced pain flare after palliative radiotherapy for bone metastases: a double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

Pain flare occurs after palliative radiotherapy, and dexamethasone has shown potential for prevention of such flare. We aimed to compare the efficacy of dexamethasone with that of placebo in terms of reduction of incidence of pain flare. In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial, patients from 23 Canadian centres were randomly allocated (1:1) with a web-based system and minimisation algorithm to receive either two 4 mg dexamethasone tablets or two placebo tablets taken orally at least 1 h before the start of radiation treatment (a single 8 Gy dose to bone metastases; day 0) and then every day for 4 days after radiotherapy (days 1-4). Patients were eligible if they had a non-haematological malignancy and bone metastasis (or metastases) corresponding to the clinically painful area or areas. Patients reported their worst pain scores and opioid analgesic intake before treatment and daily for 10 days after radiation treatment. They completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life QLQ-C15-PAL, the bone metastases module (EORTC QLQ-BM22), and the Dexamethasone Symptom Questionnaire at baseline, and at days 10 and 42 after radiation treatment. Pain flare was defined as at least a two-point increase on a scale of 0-10 in the worst pain score with no decrease in analgesic intake, or a 25% or greater increase in analgesic intake with no decrease in the worst pain score from days 0-10, followed by a return to baseline levels or below. Primary analysis of incidence of pain flare was by intention-to-treat (patients with missing primary data were classified as having pain flare). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01248585, and is completed. Between May 30, 2011, and Dec 11, 2014, 298 patients were enrolled. 39 (26%) of 148 patients randomly allocated to the dexamethasone group and 53 (35%) of 150 patients in the placebo group had a pain flare (difference 8·9%, lower 95% confidence bound 0·0, one-sided p=0·05). Two grade 3 and one grade 4 biochemical hyperglycaemic events occurred in the dexamethasone group (without known clinical effects) compared with none in the placebo group. The most common adverse events were bone pain (61 [41%] of 147 vs 68 [48%] of 143), fatigue (58 [39%] of 147 vs 49 [34%] of 143), constipation (47 [32%] of 147 vs 37 [26%] of 143), and nausea (34 [23%] of 147 vs 34 [24%] of 143), most of which were mild grade 1 or 2. Dexamethasone reduces radiation-induced pain flare in the treatment of painful bone metastases. The NCIC CTG's programmatic grant from the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute.

Regional Nodal Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer

BackgroundMost women with breast cancer who undergo breast-conserving surgery receive whole-breast irradiation. We examined whether the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation improved outcomes.MethodsWe randomly assigned women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer who were treated with breast-conserving surgery and adjuvant systemic therapy to undergo either whole-breast irradiation plus regional nodal irradiation (including internal mammary, supraclavicular, and axillary lymph nodes) (nodal-irradiation group) or whole-breast irradiation alone (control group). The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were disease-free survival, isolated locoregional disease-free survival, and distant disease-free survival.ResultsBetween March 2000 and February 2007, a total of 1832 women were assigned to the nodal-irradiation group or the control group (916 women in each group). The median follow-up was 9.5 years. At the 10-year follow-up, there was no significant between-group difference in survival, with a rate of 82.8% in the nodal-irradiation group and 81.8% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.13; P=0.38). The rates of disease-free survival were 82.0% in the nodal-irradiation group and 77.0% in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.94; P=0.01). Patients in the nodal-irradiation group had higher rates of grade 2 or greater acute pneumonitis (1.2% vs. 0.2%, P=0.01) and lymphedema (8.4% vs. 4.5%, P=0.001).ConclusionsAmong women with node-positive or high-risk node-negative breast cancer, the addition of regional nodal irradiation to whole-breast irradiation did not improve overall survival but reduced the rate of breast-cancer recurrence. (Funded by the Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute and others; MA.20 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00005957.)