South Wales, United Kingdom

Axillary Management in Breast Cancer Patients with Needle Biopsy Proven Nodal Metastases After Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Background: The presence of cancer in the axillary lymph nodes on needle biopsy in patients with early stage breast cancer before neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) has been the determinant of the need for axillary treatment (in the form of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) or axillary radiotherapy (ART)) after completion of NACT. Treatment to the axilla damages lymphatic drainage from the arm and patients can subsequently develop lymphoedema, restricted shoulder movement, pain, numbness, and other sensory problems. As more effective chemotherapy is now available that results in complete eradication of cancer in the axilla in around 40 to 70% of patients, extensive axillary treatment might no longer be necessary in patients with no evidence of residual nodal disease. Aim: To assess whether, omitting further axillary treatment (ALND and ART) for patients with early stage breast cancer and axillary nodal metastases on needle biopsy, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on sentinel node biopsy, is non-inferior to axillary treatment in terms of disease free survival (DFS) and results in reduced risk of lymphoedema at 5 years. Methods: Study design: A pragmatic, phase 3, open, randomised, multicentre trial and embedded economic evaluation in which participants will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Study population: T1-3N1M0 breast cancer patients aged 18 years or older, with needle biopsy proven nodal metastases, who after NACT have no residual cancer in the lymph nodes on dual tracer sentinel node biopsy and removal of at least 3 lymph nodes (sentinel nodes and marked involved node). Intervention: All participants will receive human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-targeted treatment, endocrine therapy and radiotherapy to breast or chest wall, if indicated according to local guidelines. Patients in the intervention group will not receive further axillary treatment (ALND or ART), whereas those receiving standard care will receive axillary treatment (ALND or ART) as per local guidelines. Follow-up is annually for at least 5 years. Outcomes: The co-primary outcomes are disease free survival(DFS) and self-reported lymphoedema defined as 'yes' to the two questions participants will be asked - 'arm heaviness during the past year' and 'arm swelling now' from the Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire at 5 years. Secondary outcomes: arm function assessed by the QuickDASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) questionnaire; health related quality of life assessed using euroqol EQ-5D-5L; axillary recurrence free interval (ARFI); local recurrence; regional (nodal) recurrence; distant metastasis; overall survival; contralateral breast cancer; non-breast malignancy; costs; quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost-effectiveness. Sample size: A sample size of 1900 patients would have the ability to demonstrate a 3.5% non-inferiority margin with a 5% 1-sided significance level and 85% power, allowing for 7% non-collection of primary outcome data assuming a 90% 5-year disease free survival rate in the control arm. It would also be able to detect at least a 5% difference in proportion of patients with lymphoedema with 90% power, a 5% 2-sided significance level and allowing for 25% non-collection of primary outcome data over 5 years. Analysis plan: All analyses will be carried out on an intention-to-treat basis to preserve randomisation, avoid bias from exclusions and preserve statistical power. Time to event outcomes, including disease free survival and axillary recurrence free interval, will be assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and compared using Cox proportional hazards models. The proportion of patients experiencing lymphoedema at 5 years will be compared across trial arms using a chi-squared test and a logistic regression model used to adjust for stratification variables. Arm morbidity and health related quality of life will be scored using the appropriate manuals and assessed using a longitudinal mixed model regression analysis if model assumptions valid or a standardised area-under-the-curve analysis. For economic evaluation, incremental cost per QALY gained at 5 years will be estimated. Timelines for delivery: Total project duration is 120 months based on 6 months for set up; 60 months recruitment period (including an 18 months internal pilot phase); and 54 months for follow up, analysis, writing up and dissemination.

Tracking Mutations in Cell Free Tumour DNA to Predict Relapse in Early Colorectal Cancer

TRACC Part B: Despite potentially curative surgery +/- adjuvant chemotherapy, a proportional of patients with early stage CRC will experience disease relapse. Current tools for surveillance, e.g., blood sampling for tumour markers (CEA) are neither sensitive nor specific. We hypothesise that detection of mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma can predict relapse in patients with early stage CRC. Circulating cell free tumour DNA (ctDNA) maintains the same mutations that are present in tumour. In colorectal cancer CRC, primary tumours and& metastases exhibit high genomic concordance. Therefore the TRACC study TRACC Part B is investigating whether serial blood samples taken from in patients with stage II and III fully resected early stage CRC colorectal cancer that have undergone potentially curative surgery, blood samples to can be used to detect and& quantify ctDNA may in order to identify minimal residual disease MRD and predict relapse earlier than existing methods. CtDNA may ultimately help identify a subset of patients that are or are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and could therefore safely spare some patients from receiving unnecessary chemotherapy & its associated side-effects. TRACC Part C: We hypothesis that ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy administration will enable biomarker driven selection of patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thereby reduce the proportion of patient receiving unnecessary adjuvant chemotherapy, reducing the potential side effects associated with it, but without compromising disease free survival (DFS). : This part of the study will use tThe blood test ctDNA result from a post-operative blood sample willto guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. The study aims to demonstrate that athe de -escalation strategy of ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to standard of care treatment as measured by 3 year DFS in patients with high risk stage II and stage III CRC, in those who have no evidence of MRD (ctDNA negative). after surgery for patients with colorectal cancer who are following the standard of care pathway. Patients are randomised at the post- operative time point to: Arm A (standard of care adjuvant chemotherapy), or Arm B (ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy) arm. For the ct DNA guided arm, patients who are ctDNA negative at this time point will have their chemotherapy de-escalated.

Aquaporin-4 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms in Patients with Idiopathic and Familial Parkinson's Disease

Parkinson's Disease (PD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disease characterized by the abnormal deposition in the brain of aggregates called Lewy Bodies, packed with a protein called α-synuclein. The mechanisms why this protein accumulates in the brain of patients with PD, as well as its relationship with clinical symptoms, is unknown. Recently, an internal mechanism of drainage of waste proteins called glymphatic system has been identified and characterized. This system is silent during wakefulness and works during sleep. When it is active, a virtual space between the blood capillaries and cells of the brain called astrocytes opens and lets out waste products from the brain. This process is mediated by a protein of the astrocytes called Aquaporin-4 (AQP4). Preclinical studies have shown that the function of this system could be critical for the clearance of β-amyloid, a protein linked with the development of Alzheimer's Disease. Studies in humans have shown that genetic variations some parts of the AQP4 gene, defined as single nucleotide polymorphisms, may increase the likelihood to develop an aggressive form of Alzheimer's Disease. However, no studies in humans have ever been performed in Parkinson's disease and α-synuclein. In this study, the investigators aim to elucidate whether genetic variations in the AQP4 gene contribute to variations in the clinical presentation and progression of sporadic and genetic forms of Parkinson's disease. To do so, the genetic profile of patients will be determined through a small venous blood sample collection. This will be coupled with clinical and sleep assessment.

Study to Continue Treatment With Darolutamide in Patients Who Have Been Participating in Previous Darolutamide Studies Supported by Bayer

Sotagliflozin in Patients With Heart Failure Symptoms and Type 1 Diabetes

BACKGROUND Intensive insulin therapy designed to near-normalize glucose levels in people with type 1 diabetes significantly reduces an individual's risk of long-term micro- and macrovascular complications. Unfortunately, glycaemic targets are not achieved by the majority of people with type 1 diabetes and as such overall life expectancy remains reduced compared to those without type 1 diabetes. Cardiovascular disease remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality in type 1 diabetes. There is growing recognition that heart failure (HF) is an increasing problem in type 1 diabetes. Diabetes itself is an independent risk factor for HF, causing structural and functional cardiac changes that predispose to HF (known as diabetic cardiomyopathy). HF is the end result of many cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension and myocardial infarction, and improved treatments for these conditions and changing demographic trends mean that many more people are surviving longer and developing HF. HF has a substantial healthcare burden. In the United States (US) and Europe, the prevalence of HF in the general population is around 1-2% - around 6 million adults in the US are estimated to be living with HF currently. In 2014 in the US there were ~1.1 million emergency department visits, 980 000 hospitalizations, and 84 000 deaths with HF as the primary cause, with an estimated cost of ~$11.3 billion (~$11,500/per patient for each hospitalisation). Despite advances in management of HF over the past 30 years, the incidence of mortality and HF hospitalisation in recent HF clinical trials remained high at ~20-30% over 2 years. The burden of HF in type 1 diabetes is less well characterised compared to HF in those with type 2 diabetes (and individuals without diabetes), however the data still indicate the substantial nature of this growing problem. One of the largest epidemiological studies was a Scottish national data study of 3.25 million individuals >30 years old, where the crude incidence of HF hospitalisation was over twice that of the population without diabetes. While the crude incidence was less than in type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes patients were on average 20 years younger. Despite their younger age, 30-day mortality following HF hospitalisation was higher in individuals with type 1 diabetes after adjustment for age, sex and socioeconomic status, indicating that outcomes are worse in HF patients with type 1 diabetes compared to those with either type 2 diabetes or without diabetes. Data from Scandinavia supports this finding and suggests that the risk of both incident HF and cardiovascular mortality was higher for individuals with type 1 diabetes compared to type 2 diabetes after adjustment for age. The overall prevalence of HF in this study at baseline was 3.1% - extrapolated to the US this would equate to 57,000 of the 1.9 million individuals with type 1 diabetes. A recent meta-analysis of all available data suggested that the incidence of HF was 3.1 times higher in individuals with type 1 diabetes compared to controls (typically the general population). Assuming a 5% incidence of HF hospitalisation/year, HF hospitalizations cost the US healthcare system ~$29 million per year. In summary, these data suggest that not only is HF a significant problem in individuals with type 1 diabetes, but there is evidence of an outcome disparity compared to individuals with type 2 diabetes or those without diabetes. Although there are some differences (e.g. presentation at a younger age), the pathophysiology of HF in type 1 diabetes is similar to type 2 diabetes. Risk factors are similar (e.g. glycaemic control, coronary artery disease and hypertension), leading to inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, fibrosis, and subsequent diastolic and systolic dysfunction. Given the pathophysiological similarities, there is little to suggest that HF therapies that have shown benefit in individuals with type 2 diabetes (or individuals without diabetes) would not also be efficacious in type 1 diabetes. In all current HF guidelines mainstay HF treatments (renin-angiotensin system blockers, beta-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists) are recommended for all patients with HF regardless of diabetes status. Sodium-glucose co-transporter inhibitors (SGLTi) were initially developed as oral add-on treatments for glycaemic control in type 2 diabetes. A consistent finding in large cardiovascular outcome trials was a significant ~30% risk reduction in hospitalisation for HF, as well as overall reductions in cardiovascular mortality. Subsequently, SGLTi in addition to guideline-directed HF therapy have been studied in HF patients either with type 2 diabetes or without diabetes and have again shown a consistent benefit compared to placebo, with significant reductions in mortality and HF hospitalisation irrespective of cardiac function left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline without any concerning safety signals. SGLTi also improve HF-related quality of life (QoL) and renal outcomes. This has led to the inclusion of SGLTi in the most recent HF treatment guidelines as a cornerstone of therapy in addition to established pharmacological agents (e.g., renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, beta-blockers and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists). However, there is one key issue - individuals with type 1 diabetes have been excluded from these HF trials, in part due to concerns around safety. At present there is no evidence to support the use of these life-saving therapies in this population that already has worse outcomes than other groups with HF. In adult type 1 diabetes, Phase III trials with dapagliflozin, empagliflozin and sotagliflozin have been completed, collectively showing modest benefits of SGLT inhibition in terms of Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reduction, increased time in range, reduced body weight and total insulin dose. However, SGLTi use in type 1 diabetes was also associated with an increased risk of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), which has limited their more widespread use in type 1 diabetes. Sotagliflozin is a dual SGLT1 and 2 inhibitor that is currently approved in the United Kingdom for use in individuals with type 1 diabetes with a body mass index (BMI) of ≥27kg/m2 and taking insulin doses of at least 0.5 units/kg of body weight in patients with inadequate glycaemic control. As with selective SGLT2i, sotagliflozin also improves HF-related outcomes. The key evidence for this comes from two clinical trials. In the Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Chronic Kidney Disease (SCORED) trial including 10,584 patients with type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular risk factors, sotagliflozin caused a 26% relative risk reduction in the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalisation or urgent HF visit compared to placebo. There was also a 33% relative risk reduction in HF hospitalisation or urgent HF visits, figures consistent with other SGLT2i trials. The second key trial was the Sotagliflozin in Patients with Diabetes and Recent Worsening Heart Failure (SOLOIST-WHF) trial. In this trial 1,222 patients with type 2 diabetes and a recent HF hospitalisation were randomised to sotagliflozin 200mg once daily (with uptitration to 400mg once daily) or placebo. Patients were included regardless of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at baseline. The median follow-up duration was 9 months. Sotagliflozin caused a 33% relative risk reduction in the primary outcome of cardiovascular death, HF hospitalisation or urgent HF visit, with a 36% reduction in HF hospitalisation or urgent HF visits that met statistical significance. Sotagliflozin also significantly improved QoL at 4 months measured using the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). Rates of serious adverse events (SAEs) leading to study drug withdrawal were similar in both sotagliflozin and placebo groups, though severe hypoglycaemia was more common with sotagliflozin than placebo (9 individuals vs. 2). There was no significant increase in incidence of DKA with sotagliflozin compared to placebo (2 vs. 4). Taken together, these two trials confirm the benefit of sotagliflozin on HF related outcomes, consistent with selective SGLT2i. Again, individuals with type 1 diabetes were excluded from both of these trials. In summary, there is significant HF related morbidity and mortality in type 1 diabetes, and outcomes are worse than in HF patients with type 2 diabetes or without diabetes. Oral sotagliflozin 200mg daily is licensed for improving glycaemic control in type 1 diabetes in the UK. Although sotagliflozin improves HF related outcomes and QoL in patients with type 2 diabetes and patients with HF who do not have diabetes, studies are needed to determine whether these benefits might extend to patients with type 1 diabetes and heart failure. RATIONALE As outlined above, HF is a significant problem in type 1 diabetes, with an estimated prevalence of 3-5%. Outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes and HF are worse than in those with type 2 diabetes or without diabetes, with increased mortality and hospitalisation rates. Critically, patients with type 1 diabetes have been excluded from pivotal trials of the latest advance in HF treatment (SGLT2i), potentially exacerbating these outcome disparities further. The proposed trial will be the first to provide data on the efficacy and safety of sotagliflozin, in patients with type 1 diabetes and HF (regardless of LVEF). If a beneficial signal is found, this would provide strong support for extending the use of sotagliflozin in this group of patients with type 1 diabetes and adoption into clinical guidelines. A multi-centre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial to provide the strongest level of evidence for previous findings of the researchers will be conducted. Importantly, by choosing QoL measured using the KCCQ as the primary endpoint, an outcome that not only correlates strongly with mortality and hospitalisation but is also accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a valid endpoint for regulatory approval has been selected. The KCCQ is a 23- item self-administered questionnaire that measures the patient's perception of their health status, including HF symptoms, impact on physical and social function, and how their HF impacts their QOL within the preceding 2 weeks. Improvements in KCCQ score map very well to reductions in mortality and hospitalisation and SGLT2i have consistently improved KCCQ scores. A 5-point increase in KCCQ score is traditionally considered clinically meaningful and is associated with a 7% reduction in mortality and HF hospitalisation. Given the prohibitive size of trial that would be required to demonstrate an improvement in mortality or HF hospitalizations with sotagliflozin in type 1 diabetes, the KCCQ represents an ideal endpoint for the trial. The proposed trial has the potential to be a high-impact, practice-changing trial.