Tom Crosby

Bio: Tom Crosby is an academic researcher from Cardiff University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Chemoradiotherapy & Capecitabine. The author has an hindex of 27, co-authored 135 publications receiving 3954 citations. Previous affiliations of Tom Crosby include Velindre NHS Trust & University Hospital of Wales.

Epirubicin, oxaliplatin, and capecitabine with or without panitumumab for patients with previously untreated advanced oesophagogastric cancer (REAL3): a randomised, open-label phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary 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/m 2 and oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1 and capecitabine 1250 mg/m 2 per day on days 1–21) or modified-dose EOC plus panitumumab (mEOC+P; epirubicin 50 mg/m 2 and oxaliplatin 100 mg/m 2 on day 1, capecitabine 1000 mg/m 2 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preplanned independent data monitoring committee review in October, 2011, trial recruitment was halted and panitumumab withdrawn.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.

Multidisciplinary team management is associated with improved outcomes after surgery for esophageal cancer

Abstract: We aim to compare the outcomes of patients undergoing R0 esophagectomy by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) with outcomes after surgery alone performed by surgeons working independently in a UK cancer unit. An historical control group of 77 consecutive patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer and undergoing surgery with curative intent by six general surgeons between 1991 and 1997 (54 R0 esophagectomies) were compared with a group of 67 consecutive patients managed by the MDT between 1998 and 2003 (53 R0 esophagectomies, 26 patients received multimodal therapy). The proportion of patients undergoing open and closed laparotomy and thoracotomy decreased from 21% and 5%, respectively, in control patients, to 13% and 0% in MDT patients (chi2 = 11.90, DF = 1, P = 0.001; chi2 = 5.45, DF = 1, P = 0.02 respectively). MDT patients had lower operative mortality (5.7%vs. 26%; chi2 = 8.22, DF = 1, P = 0.004) than control patients, and were more likely to survive 5 years (52%vs. 10%, chi2 = 15.05, P = 0.0001). In a multivariate analysis, MDT management (HR = 0.337, 95% CI = 0.201-0.564, P < 0.001), lymph node metastases (HR = 1.728, 95% CI = 1.070-2.792, P = 0.025), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (HR = 2.207, 95% CI = 1.412-3.450, P = 0.001) were independently associated with duration of survival. Multidisciplinary team management and surgical subspecialization improved outcomes after surgery significantly for patients diagnosed with esophageal cancer.

Reporting of Short-Term Clinical Outcomes After Esophagectomy: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Objective This review summarizes reporting of complications of esophageal cancer surgery. Background Accurate assessment of morbidity and mortality after surgery for cancer is essential to compare centers, allow data synthesis, and inform clinical decision-making. A lack of defined standards may distort clinically relevant treatment effects. Methods Systematic literature searches identified articles published between 2005 and 2009 reporting morbidity and mortality after esophagectomy for cancer. Data were analyzed for frequency of complication reporting and to check whether outcomes were defined and classified for severity and whether a validated system for grading complications was used. Information about reporting outcomes adjusting for baseline risk factors was collated, and a descriptive summary of the results of included outcomes was undertaken. Results Of 3458 abstracts, 224 full papers were reviewed and 122 were included (17 randomized trials and 105 observational studies), reporting outcomes of 57,299 esophagectomies. No single complication was reported in all papers, and 60 (60.6%) did not define any of the measured complications. Anastomotic leak was the most commonly reported morbidity, assessed in 80 (80.1%) articles, defined in 28 (28.3%), but 22 different descriptions were used. Five papers (5.1%) categorized morbidity with a validated grading system. One hundred fifteen papers reported postoperative mortality rates, 25 defining the term using 10 different definitions. In-hospital mortality was the most commonly used term for postoperative death, with 6 different interpretations of this phrase. Eighteen papers adjusted outcomes for baseline risk factors and 60 presented baseline measures of comorbidity. Conclusions Outcome reporting after esophageal cancer surgery is heterogeneous and inconsistent, and it lacks methodological rigor. A consensus approach to reporting clinical outcomes should be considered, and at the minimum it is recommended that a "core outcome set" is defined and used in all studies reporting outcomes of esophageal cancer surgery. This will allow meaningful cross study comparisons and analyses to evaluate surgery.

Systemic treatments for metastatic cutaneous melanoma.

Abstract: Background Systemic therapies for metastatic cutaneous melanoma, the most aggressive of all skin cancers, remain disappointing. Few lasting remissions are achieved and the therapeutic aim remains one of palliation. Many agents are used alone or in combination with varying degrees of toxicity and cost. It is unclear whether evidence exists to support these complex regimens over best supportive care / placebo. Objectives To review the benefits from the use of systemic therapies in metastatic cutaneous melanoma compared to best supportive care/placebo, and to establish whether a 'standard' therapy exists which is superior to other treatments. Search methods Randomised controlled trials were identified from the MEDLINE, EMBASE and CCTR/CENTRAL databases. References, conference proceedings, and Science Citation Index/Scisearch were also used to locate trials. Cancer registries and trialists were also contacted. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of adults with histologically proven metastatic cutaneous melanoma in which systemic anti-cancer therapy was compared with placebo or supportive care. Data collection and analysis Study selection was performed by two independent reviewers. Data extraction forms were used for studies which appeared to meet the selection criteria and, where appropriate, full text articles were retrieved and reviewed independently. Main results No randomised controlled trials were found comparing a systemic therapy with placebo or best supportive care in metastatic cutaneous melanoma. Authors' conclusions There is no evidence from randomised controlled clinical trials to show superiority of systemic therapy over best supportive care / placebo in the treatment of malignant cutaneous melanoma. Given that patients with metastatic melanoma frequently receive systemic therapy, it is our pragmatic view that a future systematic review could compare any systemic treatment, or combination of treatments, to single agent dacarbazine.

Ramucirumab plus paclitaxel versus placebo plus paclitaxel in patients with previously treated advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma (RAINBOW): a double-blind, randomised phase 3 trial

Abstract: Summary Background VEGFR-2 has a role in gastric cancer pathogenesis and progression. We assessed whether ramucirumab, a monoclonal antibody VEGFR-2 antagonist, in combination with paclitaxel would increase overall survival in patients previously treated for advanced gastric cancer compared with placebo plus paclitaxel. Methods This randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 3 trial was done at 170 centres in 27 countries in North and South America, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Patients aged 18 years or older with advanced gastric or gastro-oesophageal junction adenocarcinoma and disease progression on or within 4 months after first-line chemotherapy (platinum plus fluoropyrimidine with or without an anthracycline) were randomly assigned with a centralised interactive voice or web-response system in a 1:1 ratio to receive ramucirumab 8 mg/kg or placebo intravenously on days 1 and 15, plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m 2 intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle. A permuted block randomisation, stratified by geographic region, time to progression on first-line therapy, and disease measurability, was used. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Efficacy analysis was by intention to treat, and safety analysis included all patients who received at least one treatment with study drug. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01170663, and has been completed; patients who are still receiving treatment are in the extension phase. Findings Between Dec 23, 2010, and Sept 23, 2012, 665 patients were randomly assigned to treatment—330 to ramucirumab plus paclitaxel and 335 to placebo plus paclitaxel. Overall survival was significantly longer in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group than in the placebo plus paclitaxel group (median 9·6 months [95% CI 8·5–10·8] vs 7·4 months [95% CI 6·3–8·4], hazard ratio 0·807 [95% CI 0·678–0·962]; p=0·017). Grade 3 or higher adverse events that occurred in more than 5% of patients in the ramucirumab plus paclitaxel group versus placebo plus paclitaxel included neutropenia (133 [41%] of 327 vs 62 [19%] of 329), leucopenia (57 [17%] vs 22 [7%]), hypertension (46 [14%] vs eight [2%]), fatigue (39 [12%] vs 18 [5%]), anaemia (30 [9%] vs 34 [10%]), and abdominal pain (20 [6%] vs 11 [3%]). The incidence of grade 3 or higher febrile neutropenia was low in both groups (ten [3%] vs eight [2%]). Interpretation The combination of ramucirumab with paclitaxel significantly increases overall survival compared with placebo plus paclitaxel, and could be regarded as a new standard second-line treatment for patients with advanced gastric cancer. Funding Eli Lilly and Company.

FOLFIRINOX or Gemcitabine as Adjuvant Therapy for Pancreatic Cancer

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Among patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer, combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, leucovorin, irinotecan, and oxaliplatin (FOLFIRINOX) leads to longer overall survival than gemcitabine therapy. We compared the efficacy and safety of a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen with gemcitabine as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We randomly assigned 493 patients with resected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma to receive a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen (oxaliplatin [85 mg per square meter of body-surface area], irinotecan [180 mg per square meter, reduced to 150 mg per square meter after a protocol-specified safety analysis], leucovorin [400 mg per square meter], and fluorouracil [2400 mg per square meter] every 2 weeks) or gemcitabine (1000 mg per square meter on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) for 24 weeks. The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 33.6 months, the median disease-free survival was 21.6 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 12.8 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for cancer-related event, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.73; P<0.001). The disease-free survival rate at 3 years was 39.7% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 21.4% in the gemcitabine group. The median overall survival was 54.4 months in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 35.0 months in the gemcitabine group (stratified hazard ratio for death, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.86; P=0.003). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 63.4% in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and 48.6% in the gemcitabine group. Adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 75.9% of the patients in the modified-FOLFIRINOX group and in 52.9% of those in the gemcitabine group. One patient in the gemcitabine group died from toxic effects (interstitial pneumonitis). CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant therapy with a modified FOLFIRINOX regimen led to significantly longer survival than gemcitabine among patients with resected pancreatic cancer, at the expense of a higher incidence of toxic effects. (Funded by RD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01526135 ; EudraCT number, 2011-002026-52 .).

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology

Abstract: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of the breast represents a heterogeneous group of neoplastic lesions in the breast ducts. The goal for management of DCIS is to prevent the development of invasive breast cancer. This manuscript focuses on the NCCN Guidelines Panel recommendations for the workup, primary treatment, risk reduction strategies, and surveillance specific to DCIS.

The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0

Abstract: The selection of appropriate outcomes is crucial when designing clinical trials in order to compare the effects of different interventions directly. For the findings to influence policy and practice, the outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders including patients and the public, health care professionals and others making decisions about health care. It is now widely acknowledged that insufficient attention has been paid to the choice of outcomes measured in clinical trials. Researchers are increasingly addressing this issue through the development and use of a core outcome set, an agreed standardised collection of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all trials for a specific clinical area. Accumulating work in this area has identified the need for guidance on the development, implementation, evaluation and updating of core outcome sets. This Handbook, developed by the COMET Initiative, brings together current thinking and methodological research regarding those issues. We recommend a four-step process to develop a core outcome set. The aim is to update the contents of the Handbook as further research is identified.