Friend P.,Clinical Trial Service Unit
The Lancet | Year: 2014
Background Calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs) reduce short-term kidney transplant failure, but might contribute to transplant failure in the long-term. The role of alemtuzumab (a potent lymphocyte-depleting antibody) as an induction treatment followed by an early reduction in CNI and mycophenolate exposure and steroid avoidance, after kidney transplantation is uncertain. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of alemtuzumab-based induction treatment compared with basiliximab-based induction treatment in patients receiving kidney transplants. Methods For this randomised trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years and older who were scheduled to receive a kidney transplant in the next 24 h from 18 transplant centres in the UK. Using minimised randomisation, we randomly assigned patients (1:1; minimised for age, sex, and immunological risk) to either alemtuzumab-based induction treatment (ie, alemtuzumab followed by low-dose tacrolimus and mycophenolate without steroids) or basiliximab-based induction treatment (basiliximab followed by standard-dose tacrolimus, mycophenolate, and prednisolone). Participants were reviewed at discharge from hospital and at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after transplantation. The primary outcome was biopsy-proven acute rejection at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01120028, and isrctn.org, number ISRCTN88894088. Findings Between Oct 4, 2010, and Jan 21, 2013, we randomly assigned 852 participants to treatment: 426 to alemtuzumab-based treatment and 426 to basiliximab-based treatment. Overall, individuals allocated to alemtuzumab-based treatment had a 58% proportional reduction in biopsy-proven acute rejection compared with those allocated to basiliximab-based treatment (31 [7%] patients in the alemtuzumab group vs 68 [16%] patients in the basiliximab group; hazard ratio (HR) 0·42, 95% CI 0·28-0·64; log-rank p<0·0001). We detected no between-group difference in treatment effect on transplant failure during the first 6 months (16 [4%] patients vs 13 [3%] patients; HR 1·23, 0·59-2·55; p=0·58) or serious infection (135 [32%] patients vs 136 [32%] patients; HR 1·02, 0·80-1·29; p=0·88). During the first 6 months after transplantation, 11 (3%) patients given alemtuzumab-based treatment and six (1%) patients given basiliximab-based treatment died (HR 1·79, 95% CI 0·66-4·83; p=0·25). Interpretation Compared with standard basiliximab-based treatment, alemtuzumab-based induction therapy followed by reduced CNI and mycophenolate exposure and steroid avoidance reduced the risk of biopsy-proven acute rejection in a broad range of patients receiving a kidney transplant. Long-term follow-up of this trial will assess whether these effects translate into differences in long-term transplant function and survival. Funding UK National Health Service Blood and Transplant Research and Development Programme, Pfizer, and Novartis UK. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd.
Dearden C.E.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Richards S.,Clinical Trial Service Unit |
Else M.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Catovsky D.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Hillmen P.,Leeds Teaching Hospitals
Cancer | Year: 2011
BACKGROUND: An oral formulation of fludarabine was introduced for use in chronic lymphocytic leukemia in 2001 following studies demonstrating the bioequivalence of a 40 mg/m2 oral dose with a 25 mg/m2 intravenous dose. We assessed retrospectively the efficacy of these two routes of administration in the LRF CLL4 trial. METHODS: A total of 777 patients were randomized from 1999-2004 to receive fludarabine, alone or with cyclophosphamide, or chlorambucil. In 2001, a protocol amendment allowed the oral formulation. There were 117 assessable patients who received fludarabine intravenously and 252 who received it orally. A total of 387 patients given chlorambucil acted as a control group. RESULTS: Patients given oral fludarabine were less likely to receive the full dose (P = .0004) and experienced more, predominantly gastrointestinal, toxicity. Progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were not affected by the route of administration (PFS hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.40), but the overall rate of response to treatment appeared to be lower with the oral formulation (P = .003). However, patients recruited since 2001 were older (P = .03) and were more likely to have TP53 deletion, and response rates after 2001 were also lower in the chlorambucil group. After excluding patients with TP53 deletion, no significant difference in outcome was attributable to the route of administration. CONCLUSIONS: Although the LRF CLL4 data suggest no important difference in the effectiveness of oral compared with intravenous fludarabine, randomized trials are needed to reliably evaluate this comparison, particularly in combination with rituximab. Meanwhile, it is important to monitor compliance and gastrointestinal side effects with the oral route and to switch to intravenous therapy if a reduced dose is being received. © 2010 American Cancer Society.
Fielding A.K.,University College London |
Rowe J.M.,Rambam Medical Center |
Buck G.,Clinical Trial Service Unit |
Foroni L.,Imperial College London |
And 11 more authors.
Blood | Year: 2014
The Philadelphia chromosome positive arm of the UKALLXII/ECOG2993 study for adult acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) enrolled 266 patients between 1993 and 2003 (preimatinib cohort). In 2003 imatinib was introduced as a single-agent course following induction (N 5 86, late imatinib). In 2005 imatinib was added to the second phase of induction (N 5 89, early imatinib). The complete remission (CR) rate was 92% in the imatinib cohort vs 82% in the preimatinib cohort (P 5 .004). At 4 years, the overall survival (OS) of all patients in the imatinib cohort was 38% vs 22% in the preimatinib cohort (P 5 .003). The magnitude of the difference between the preimatinib and imatinib cohorts in event-free survival (EFS), OS, and relapse-free survival (RFS) seen in univariate analysis was even greater in the multivariate analysis. In the preimatinib cohort, 31% of those starting treatment achieved hematopoietic stem cell transplant (alloHSCT) compared with 46% in the imatinib cohort. A Cox multivariate analysis taking alloHSCT into account showed a modest additional benefit to imatinib (hazard ratio for EFS 5 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.93, P 5 .02), but no significant benefit for OS and RFS. Adding imatinib to standard therapy improves CR rate and long-term OS for adults with ALL. A proportion of the OS benefit derives from the fact that imatinib facilitates alloHSCT. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT00002514. © 2014 by The American Society of Hematology.
Catovsky D.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Else M.,Institute of Cancer Research |
Richards S.,Clinical Trial Service Unit
Clinical Lymphoma, Myeloma and Leukemia | Year: 2011
Although chlorambucil has been used in the management of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) for 55 years, the optimal dose and treatment duration have not been established. We summarized data from 4 UK randomized CLL trials over the past 30 years in which chlorambucil, as a single agent, was one of the study arms. Overall response rates (ORR) ranged from 57% to 75% when using doses of 60-70 mg/m 2 per 28-day cycle. This compares favorably with an ORR of 31% to 55% in other studies that used lower doses. Response rates improved when patients received 6 or more courses. Studies that used chlorambucil as a comparator, at lower doses or with fewer courses, resulted in consistently lower ORR. Comparisons with single-agent fludarabine in 2 randomized trials (LRF CLL4 and German CLL5) showed similar progression-free survival. Chlorambucil compares favorably with fludarabine and bendamustine with respect to myelotoxicity, neutropenia, and fever, even at 70 mg/m2 per cycle and in the elderly. Resistance to chlorambucil does not preclude a good response to newer treatments used as second-line treatment, which explains the good survival after progression observed in patients randomized to chlorambucil in LRF CLL4. Chlorambucil is currently being combined with anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies in several phase II and III trials. It remains a useful drug for patients unfit to receive more intensive combinations. However, both the dose and duration of treatment are important. © 2011 Published by Elsevier Inc.
Taylor C.W.,Clinical Trial Service Unit |
Kirby A.M.,Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust
Clinical Oncology | Year: 2015
Breast cancer radiotherapy reduces the risk of cancer recurrence and death. However, it usually involves some radiation exposure of the heart and analyses of randomised trials have shown that it can increase the risk of heart disease. Estimates of the absolute risks of radiation-related heart disease are needed to help oncologists plan each individual woman's treatment. The risk for an individual woman varies according to her estimated cardiac radiation dose and her background risk of ischaemic heart disease in the absence of radiotherapy. When it is known, this risk can then be compared with the absolute benefit of the radiotherapy. At present, many UK cancer centres are already giving radiotherapy with mean heart doses of less than 3 Gy and for most women the benefits of the radiotherapy will probably far outweigh the risks. Technical approaches to minimising heart dose in breast cancer radiotherapy include optimisation of beam angles, use of multileaf collimator shielding, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, treatment in a prone position, treatment in deep inspiration (including the use of breath-hold and gating techniques), proton therapy and partial breast irradiation. The multileaf collimator is suitable for many women with upper pole left breast cancers, but for women with central or lower pole cancers, breath-holding techniques are now recommended in national UK guidelines. Ongoing work aims to identify ways of irradiating pan-regional lymph nodes that are effective, involve minimal exposure of organs at risk and are feasible to plan, deliver and verify. These will probably include wide tangent-based field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy or arc radiotherapy techniques in combination with deep inspiratory breath-hold, and proton beam irradiation for women who have a high predicted heart dose from intensity-modulated radiotherapy. © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists.