Publications by authors named "T Geldart"

25 Publications

Radiological Response Heterogeneity Is of Prognostic Significance in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated with Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor-targeted Therapy.

Eur Urol Focus 2020 09 6;6(5):999-1005. Epub 2019 Feb 6.

Barts Cancer Institute, CRUK Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, London, UK; Department of Oncology, Royal Free NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Electronic address:

Background: Response evaluation criteria in solid tumours (RECIST) is widely used to assess tumour response but is limited by not considering disease site or radiological heterogeneity (RH).

Objective: To determine whether RH or disease site has prognostic significance in patients with metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

Design, Setting, And Participants: A retrospective analysis was conducted of a second-line phase II study in patients with metastatic ccRCC (NCT00942877), evaluating 138 patients with 458 baseline lesions.

Intervention: The phase II trial assessed vascular endothelial growth factor-targeted therapy±Src inhibition.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: RH at week 8 was assessed within individual patients with two or more lesions to predict overall survival (OS) using Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model. We defined a high heterogeneous response as occurring when one or more lesion underwent a ≥10% reduction and one or more lesion underwent a ≥10% increase in size. Disease progression was defined by RECIST 1.1 criteria.

Results And Limitations: In patients with a complete/partial response or stable disease by RECIST 1.1 and two or more lesions at week 8, those with a high heterogeneous response had a shorter OS compared to those with a homogeneous response (hazard ratio [HR] 2.01; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.39-2.92; p<0.001). Response by disease site at week 8 did not affect OS. At disease progression, one or more new lesion was associated with worse survival compared with >20% increase in sum of target lesion diameters only (HR 2.12; 95% CI: 1.43-3.14; p<0.001). Limitations include retrospective study design.

Conclusions: RH and the development of new lesions may predict survival in metastatic ccRCC. Further prospective studies are required.

Patient Summary: We looked at individual metastases in patients with kidney cancer and showed that a variable response to treatment and the appearance of new metastases may be associated with worse survival. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2019.01.010DOI Listing
September 2020

COAST (Cisplatin ototoxicity attenuated by aspirin trial): A phase II double-blind, randomised controlled trial to establish if aspirin reduces cisplatin induced hearing-loss.

Eur J Cancer 2017 12 10;87:75-83. Epub 2017 Nov 10.

Cancer Sciences Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom; Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Poole, United Kingdom. Electronic address:

Background: Cisplatin is one of the most ototoxic chemotherapy drugs, resulting in a permanent and irreversible hearing loss in up to 50% of patients. Cisplatin and gentamicin are thought to damage hearing through a common mechanism, involving reactive oxygen species in the inner ear. Aspirin has been shown to minimise gentamicin-induced ototoxicity. We, therefore, tested the hypothesis that aspirin could also reduce ototoxicity from cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Methods: A total of 94 patients receiving cisplatin-based chemotherapy for multiple cancer types were recruited into a phase II, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial and randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to receive aspirin 975 mg tid and omeprazole 20 mg od, or matched placebos from the day before, to 2 days after, their cisplatin dose(s), for each treatment cycle. Patients underwent pure tone audiometry before and at 7 and 90 days after their final cisplatin dose. The primary end-point was combined hearing loss (cHL), the summed hearing loss at 6 kHz and 8 kHz, in both ears.

Results: Although aspirin was well tolerated, it did not protect hearing in patients receiving cisplatin (p-value = 0.233, 20% one-sided level of significance). In the aspirin arm, patients demonstrated mean cHL of 49 dB (standard deviation [SD] 61.41) following cisplatin compared with placebo patients who demonstrated mean cHL of 36 dB (SD 50.85). Women had greater average hearing loss than men, and patients treated for head and neck malignancy experienced the greatest cHL.

Conclusions: Aspirin did not protect from cisplatin-related ototoxicity. Cisplatin and gentamicin may therefore have distinct ototoxic mechanisms, or cisplatin-induced ototoxicity may be refractory to the aspirin regimen used here.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2017.09.033DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5729023PMC
December 2017

Outcome and Biomarker Analysis from a Multicenter Phase 2 Study of Ipilimumab in Combination with Carboplatin and Etoposide as First-Line Therapy for Extensive-Stage SCLC.

J Thorac Oncol 2016 09 11;11(9):1511-21. Epub 2016 Jun 11.

University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.

Objectives: Our aim was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ipilimumab combined with standard first-line chemotherapy for patients with extensive-stage SCLC.

Methods: Patients with chemotherapy-naive extensive-stage SCLC were treated with carboplatin and etoposide for up to six cycles. Ipilimumab, 10 mg/kg, was given on day 1 of cycles 3 to 6 and every 12 weeks. Response was assessed by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST), version 1.0, and immune-related response criteria. The primary end point was 1-year progression-free survival (PFS) according to RECIST. Secondary end points included PFS according to immune-related PFS and overall survival. Autoantibody serum levels were evaluated and correlated with clinical outcomes.

Results: A total of 42 patients were enrolled between September 2011 and April 2014; 39 were evaluable for safety and 38 for efficacy. Six of 38 patients (15.8% [95% confidence interval (CI): 7.4-30.4]) were alive and progression-free at 1-year by RECIST. Median PFS was 6.9 months (95% CI: 5.5-7.9). Median immune-related PFS was 7.3 months (95% CI: 5.5-8.8). Median overall survival was 17.0 months (95% CI: 7.9-24.3). Of the patients evaluable for response, 21 of 29 (72.4%) achieved an objective response by RECIST and 28 of 33 (84.8%) achieved an objective response by the immune-related response criteria. All patients experienced at least one adverse event; at least one grade 3 or higher toxicity developed in 35 of 39 patients (89.7%); in 27 patients (69.2%) this was related to ipilimumab. Five deaths were reported to be related to ipilimumab. Positivity of an autoimmune profile at baseline was associated with improved outcomes and severe neurological toxicity.

Conclusions: Ipilimumab in combination with carboplatin and etoposide might benefit a subgroup of patients with advanced SCLC. Autoantibody analysis correlates with treatment benefit and toxicity and warrants further investigation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtho.2016.05.028DOI Listing
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5063510PMC
September 2016

A randomized, double-blind phase II study evaluating cediranib versus cediranib and saracatinib in patients with relapsed metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (COSAK).

Ann Oncol 2016 05 22;27(5):880-6. Epub 2016 Jan 22.

Department of Medical Oncology, Mount Vernon Cancer Centre, Northwood, UK.

Background: Preclinical work suggests SRC proteins have a role in the development of resistance to vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) targeted therapy in metastatic clear-cell renal cancer (mRCC). This hypothesis was tested in this trial using the SRC inhibitor saracatinib and the VEGF inhibitor cediranib.

Patients And Methods: Patients with disease progression after ≥1 VEGF-targeted therapy were eligible to participate in this double-blind, randomized (1:1) phase II study. The study compared the combination cediranib 30 mg once daily (o.d.) and saracatinib 175 mg o.d. (CS) (n = 69) or cediranib 45 mg o.d. and placebo o.d. (C) (n = 69). Archived tissue was used for biomarker analysis [SRC, focal adhesion kinase (FAK), von Hippel-Lindau, protein tyrosine phosphatase 1b and hypoxia-inducible factor 2α : n = 86]. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) by RECIST v1.1.

Results: Between 2010 and 2012, 138 patients were randomized across 16 UK sites. The characteristics of the two groups were well balanced. Partial responses were seen in 13.0% for C and 14.5% for CS (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in PFS [5.4 months (3.6-7.3 months) for C and 3.9 (2.4-5.3 months) for CS; hazard ratio (HR) 1.18 (0.94-1.48)] or overall survival (OS) [14.2 months (11.2-16.8 months) for C and 10.0 (6.7-13.2 months) for CS; HR 1.28 (1.00-1.63)]. There was no significant difference in the frequency of key adverse events, dose reductions or drug discontinuations. None of the biomarkers were prognostic for PFS or OS. FAK overexpression correlated with an OS benefit [HR 2.29 (1.09-4.82), P > 0.05], but not PFS, for CS.

Conclusions: Saracatinib did not increase the efficacy of a VEGF-targeted therapy (cediranib) in this setting. Biomarker analysis did not identify consistent predictive biomarkers.

Clinicaltrialsgov: NCT00942877.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdw014DOI Listing
May 2016

A Randomised Phase 2 Study of AZD2014 Versus Everolimus in Patients with VEGF-Refractory Metastatic Clear Cell Renal Cancer.

Eur Urol 2016 Mar 11;69(3):450-6. Epub 2015 Sep 11.

St. James's University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

Background: Everolimus is a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor used in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-refractory metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). It acts on only part of the mTOR complex (TORC1 alone). In vitro data support the use of mTOR inhibitors with broader activity (TORC1 and TORC2).

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine whether combined TORC1 and TORC2 inhibition with AZD2014 has superior activity to everolimus in VEGF-refractory clear cell mRCC.

Design, Setting, And Participants: Patients with measurable mRCC and VEGF-refractory disease were eligible for this trial.

Intervention: Starting in February 2013, patients were randomised (1:1) to AZD2014 (50 mg twice daily) or everolimus (10 mg once daily) until progression of disease at 10 centres across the United Kingdom.

Outcome Measurements And Statistical Analysis: Progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary end point and was compared using the stratified log-rank test. Secondary end points included tolerability, response rates, overall survival (OS), and pharmacokinetics (PK) analysis. The study was planned to recruit 120 patients.

Results And Limitations: Recruitment into the trial was stopped early (June 2014) due to lack of efficacy of AZD2014. At that point, 49 patients were randomised (26 to AZD2014 and 23 to everolimus). The PFS for AZD2014 and everolimus was 1.8 and 4.6 mo, respectively (hazard ratio: 2.8 [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2-6.5]; p=0.01). Progression of disease as the best response to therapy was 69% for AZD2014 and 13% for everolimus (p<0.001). Grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) occurred in 35% of AZD2014 and 48% of everolimus patients (p=0.3). Only 4% of patients stopped AZD2014 due to AEs. PK analysis suggested concentrations of AZD2014 were compatible with the therapeutic range. Final stratified OS hazard ratio at the time of trial closure (January 2015) was 3.1 (95% CI, 1.1-8.4; p<0.02).

Conclusions: The PFS and OS of AZD2014 were inferior to everolimus in this setting despite acceptable AE and PK profiles.

Patient Summary: There is a strong rationale for testing mTOR inhibitors with a broader spectrum of activity than everolimus in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AZD2014 is such an agent, but in this study, it was inferior to everolimus despite its attractive toxicity profile.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.08.035DOI Listing
March 2016
-->