Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Sheffield, United Kingdom

Winter M.C.,Weston Park Hospital | Coleman R.E.,Academic Unit of Clinical Oncology
Clinical Oncology | Year: 2013

Bisphosphonates, as potent inhibitors of osteoclast-mediated bone resorption, significantly reduce the risk of skeletal complications in metastatic bone disease and also prevent cancer treatment-induced bone loss (CTIBL). However, more recently, there has been increasing data indicating that bisphosphonates exhibit anti-tumour activity, possibly via both indirect and direct effects, and can potentially modify the metastatic disease process providing more than just supportive care. The evidence from previous studies of an anti-tumour effect of bisphosphonates was inconclusive, with conflicting evidence from adjuvant oral clodronate trials. However, more recent trials using zoledronic acid have shown benefits in terms of disease-free and overall survival outcomes in certain subgroups, most evidently in older premenopausal women with hormone-sensitive disease treated with ovarian suppression, and in women in established menopause at trial entry. In the adjuvant setting, the use of bisphosphonates has also been focused on the prevention and treatment of CTIBL and recent guidelines have defined treatment strategies for CTIBL. The role of bisphosphonates in CTIBL in early breast cancer is well defined. There have been mixed results from large adjuvant metastasis-prevention studies of bisphosphonates, but there are strong signals from large subgroups analyses of randomised phase III trials suggesting significant anti-tumour beneficial effects in specific patient populations. © 2012 The Royal College of Radiologists. Source


Slotman B.J.,VU University Amsterdam | Van Tinteren H.,Netherlands Cancer Institute | Praag J.O.,Erasmus University Rotterdam | Knegjens J.L.,Netherlands Cancer Institute | And 4 more authors.
The Lancet | Year: 2015

Background Most patients with extensive stage small-cell lung cancer (ES-SCLC) who undergo chemotherapy, and prophylactic cranial irradiation, have persistent intrathoracic disease. We assessed thoracic radiotherapy for treatment of this patient group. Methods We did this phase 3 randomised controlled trial at 42 hospitals: 16 in Netherlands, 22 in the UK, three in Norway, and one in Belgium. We enrolled patients with WHO performance score 0-2 and confirmed ES-SCLC who responded to chemotherapy. They were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either thoracic radiotherapy (30 Gy in ten fractions) or no thoracic radiotherapy. All underwent prophylactic cranial irradiation. The primary endpoint was overall survival at 1 year in the intention-to-treat population. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival. This study is registered with the Nederlands Trial Register, number NTR1527. Findings We randomly assigned 498 patients between Feb 18, 2009, and Dec 21, 2012. Three withdrew informed consent, leaving 247 patients in the thoracic radiotherapy group and 248 in the control group. Mean interval between diagnosis and randomisation was 17 weeks. Median follow-up was 24 months. Overall survival at 1 year was not significantly different between groups: 33% (95% CI 27-39) for the thoracic radiotherapy group versus 28% (95% CI 22-34) for the control group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·84, 95% CI 0·69-1·01; p=0·066). However, in a secondary analysis, 2-year overall survival was 13% (95% CI 9-19) versus 3% (95% CI 2-8; p=0·004). Progression was less likely in the thoracic radiotherapy group than in the control group (HR 0·73, 95% CI 0·61-0·87; p=0·001). At 6 months, progression-free survival was 24% (95% CI 19-30) versus 7% (95% CI 4-11; p=0·001). We recorded no severe toxic effects. The most common grade 3 or higher toxic effects were fatigue (11 vs 9) and dyspnoea (three vs four). Interpretation Thoracic radiotherapy in addition to prophylactic cranial irradiation should be considered for all patients with ES-SCLC who respond to chemotherapy. Funding Dutch Cancer Society (CKTO), Dutch Lung Cancer Research Group, Cancer Research UK, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre Trials Coordination Unit, and the UK National Cancer Research Network. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Hoskin P.J.,Mount Vernon Cancer Center | Kirkwood A.A.,University College London | Popova B.,University College London | Smith P.,University College London | And 9 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2014

Background: Follicular lymphoma has been shown to be highly radiosensitive with responses to doses as low as 4 Gy in two fractions. This trial was designed to explore the dose response for follicular lymphoma comparing 4 Gy in two fractions with 24 Gy in 12 fractions. Methods: FORT is a prospective randomised, unblinded, phase 3 non-inferiority study comparing radiotherapy given as 4 Gy in two fractions with a standard dose of 24 Gy in 12 fractions. Entry criteria included all patients aged over 18 years, having local radiotherapy for radical or palliative local control, with follicular lymphoma or marginal zone lymphoma, who had received no previous treatment for at least 1 month before. The primary outcome was time to local progression analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. Randomisation was centralised through the Cancer Research UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre. Radiotherapy target sites were randomised (1:1) with minimisation stratified by histology (follicular lymphoma vs marginal zone lymphoma), treatment intent (palliative or curative) and centre. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00310167. Findings: 299 sites were randomly assigned to 24 Gy and 315 sites to 4 Gy between April 7, 2006, and June 8, 2011, at 43 centres in the UK. After a median follow-up of 26 months (range 0·39-75·4), 91 local progressions had been recorded (21 in the 24 Gy group and 70 in the 4 Gy group). Time to local progression with 4 Gy was not non-inferior to 24 Gy (hazard ratio 3·42, 95% CI 2·09-5·55, p<0·0001). Eight (3%) of 282 patients in the 24 Gy group and four (1%) of 300 in the 4 Gy group had acute grade 3-4 toxic effects. Four (1%) patients in the 24 Gy group and four (1%) patients in the 4 Gy group had late toxic effects. Mucositis was the most common event in the 24 Gy group (two patients with acute mucositis and two with late mucositis; all grade 3) and was not reported in the 4 Gy group. The most common acute effect was pain at the site of irradiation (two patients in the 4 Gy group, one patient in the 24 Gy group; all grade 3), and the most common late effect was fatigue (two patients in the 4 Gy group, one patient in the 24 Gy group; all grade 3). Interpretation: 24 Gy in 12 fractions is the more effective radiation schedule for indolent lymphoma and should be regarded as the standard of care. However, 4 Gy remains a useful alternative for palliative treatment. Funding: Cancer Research UK. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Waddell T.,Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust | Chau I.,Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust | Cunningham D.,Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust | Gonzalez D.,Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust | And 17 more authors.
The Lancet Oncology | Year: 2013

Background: EGFR overexpression occurs in 27-55% of oesophagogastric adenocarcinomas, and correlates with poor prognosis. We aimed to assess addition of the anti-EGFR antibody panitumumab to epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine (EOC) in patients with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Methods: In this randomised, open-label phase 3 trial (REAL3), we enrolled patients with untreated, metastatic, or locally advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma at 63 centres (tertiary referral centres, teaching hospitals, and district general hospitals) in the UK. Eligible patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive up to eight 21-day cycles of open-label EOC (epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m2 per day on days 1-21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-21, and panitumumab 9 mg/kg on day 1). Randomisation was blocked and stratified for centre region, extent of disease, and performance status. The primary endpoint was overall survival in the intention-to-treat population. We assessed safety in all patients who received at least one dose of study drug. After a preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn. Data for patients on treatment were censored at this timepoint. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00824785. Findings: Between June 2, 2008, and Oct 17, 2011, we enrolled 553 eligible patients. Median overall survival in 275 patients allocated EOC was 11·3 months (95% CI 9·6-13·0) compared with 8·8 months (7·7-9·8) in 278 patients allocated mEOC+P (hazard ratio [HR] 1·37, 95% CI 1·07-1·76; p=0·013). mEOC+P was associated with increased incidence of grade 3-4 diarrhoea (48 [17%] of 276 patients allocated mEOC+P vs 29 [11%] of 266 patients allocated EOC), rash (29 [11%] vs two [1%]), mucositis (14 [5%] vs none), and hypomagnesaemia (13 [5%] vs none) but reduced incidence of haematological toxicity (grade ≥3 neutropenia 35 [13%] vs 74 [28%]). Interpretation: Addition of panitumumab to EOC chemotherapy does not increase overall survival and cannot be recommended for use in an unselected population with advanced oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma. Funding: Amgen, UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Silva S.,Weston Park Hospital | Danson S.,Weston Park Hospital
Thoracic Surgery Clinics | Year: 2013

The development of targeted therapies in lung cancer (mainly non-small cell lung cancer) has led to improvement in clinical outcomes and a more personalized approach to the management of these patients. This article discusses the main categories of novel targeted agents and the evidence behind their use. © 2013 Elsevier Inc. Source

Discover hidden collaborations