BackgroundRecently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for... Show moreBackgroundRecently, we performed a meta-analysis based on a literature review for STS trials (published 2003-2018, >= 10 adult patients) to update long-standing reference values for leiomyosarcomas. This work is extended for liposarcomas (LPS) and synovial sarcomas (SS).Materials and methodsStudy endpoints were progression-free survival rates (PFSRs) at 3 and 6 months. Trial-specific estimates were pooled per treatment line (first-line or pre-treated) with random effects meta-analyses. The choice of the therapeutic benefit to target in future trials was guided by the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS).ResultsInformation was acquired for 1030 LPS patients (25 trials; 7 first-line, 17 pre-treated, 1 both) and 348 SS patients (13 trials; 3 first-line, 10 pre-treated). For LPS, the overall pooled first-line PFSRs were 69% (95%-CI 60-77%) and 56% (95%-CI 45-67%) at 3 and 6 months, respectively. These rates were 49% (95%-CI 40-57%)/28% (95%-CI 22-34%) for >1 lines. For SS, first-line PFSRs were 74% (95%-CI 58-86%)/56% (95%-CI 31-78%) at 3 and 6 months, and pre-treated rates were 45% (95%-CI 34-57%)/25% (95%-CI 16-36%). Following ESMO-MCBS guidelines, the minimum values to target are 79% and 69% for first-line LPS (82% and 69% for SS) at 3 and 6 months. For pre-treated LPS, recommended PFSRs at 3 and 6 months suggesting drug activity are 63% and 44% (60% and 41% for SS).ConclusionsNew benchmarks are proposed for advanced/metastatic LPS or SS to design future histology-specific phase II trials. More data are needed to provide definitive thresholds for the different LPS subtypes. 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Couwenberg, A.; Heide, U. van der; Janssen, T.; Triest, B. van; Remeijer, P.; Marijnen, C.; ... ; Nowee, M. 2022
The master protocol trial design aims to increase efficiency in terms of trial infrastructure and protocol administration which may accelerate development of (technical) innovations in radiation...Show moreThe master protocol trial design aims to increase efficiency in terms of trial infrastructure and protocol administration which may accelerate development of (technical) innovations in radiation oncology. A master protocol to study feasibility of techniques/software for MR-guided adaptive radiotherapy with the MR-Linac is described and discussed. Show less
Kantidakis, G.; Litiere, S.; Neven, A.; Vinches, M.; Judson, I.; Schoffski, P.; ... ; Gelderblom, H. 2021
Background: In 2002, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group reported well-established values for conducting phase II trials for soft... Show moreBackground: In 2002, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Soft Tissue and Bone Sarcoma Group reported well-established values for conducting phase II trials for soft-tissue sarcomas. An update is provided for leiomyosarcoma (LMS). Materials and methods: Clinical trials with advanced or metastatic LMS were identified via literature review in PubMed (published 2003-2018, >10 adult LMS patients). End-points were 3-and 6-month progression-free survival rates (PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m). When estimates could not be derived from publications, data requests were sent out. Treatments were classified as recommended (R-T) or non-recommended (NR-T) according to the ESMO 2018 guidelines. A random effects meta-analysis was used to pool trial-specific estimates for first-line (1L) or pre-treated (2L+) patients separately. The ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale was used to guide the treatment effect to target in future trials. Results: From 47 studies identified, we obtained information on 7 1L and 16 2L+ trials for 1500 LMS patients. Overall, in 1L, PFSR-3m and PFSR-6m were 74% (95% confidence interval [CI] 64-82%) and 58% (95% CI 50-66%), respectively. For 2L+, PFSR-3m was 48% (95% CI 41-54%), and PFSR-6m was 28% (95% CI 22-34%). No difference was observed between R-T and NR-T for first or later lines. Under the alternative that the true benefit amounts to a hazard ratio of 0.65, a PFSR-6m >70% can be considered to suggest drug activity in 1L. For 2L+, a PFSR-3m >62% or PFSR-6m >44% would suggest drug activity. Specific results are also provided for uterine LMS. Conclusions: This work provides a new benchmark for designing phase II studies for advanced or metastatic LMS. (c) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Objective: The objective of this study was to identify key features to be addressed in the reporting of deprescribing trials and to elab-orate and explain CONSORT items in this regard.Study Design... Show moreObjective: The objective of this study was to identify key features to be addressed in the reporting of deprescribing trials and to elab-orate and explain CONSORT items in this regard.Study Design and Setting: As a first step in a multistage process and based on a systematic review of deprescribing trials, we elab-orated variation in design, intervention, and reporting of the included trials of the review. We identified items that were missed or insufficiently described, using the CONSORT and TIDieR checklists. The resulting list of items, which we considered relevant to be reported in deprescribing trials, were discussed in a single-round Delphi exercise and subsequently in a full-day face-to-face meeting with an international panel of 14 experts. We agreed on CONSORT items for further elaboration with regard to design and reporting of deprescribing trials.Results: We identified seven CONSORT items on trial design, participants, intervention, outcomes, flowchart, and harms, where the investigators of deprescribing trials should take into consideration specific aspects, such as whether or not to use placebo or how to inform participants.Conclusion: This article presents an elaboration to the CONSORT statement for the reporting of deprescribing trials. It may also support investigators in motivated design choices. (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Manai, M.; Middendorp, H. van; Veldhuijzen, D.S.; Pol, J.A. van der; Huizinga, T.W.J.; Evers, A.W.M. 2020
Background In pharmacological conditioning associations are formed between the effects of medication and contextual factors related to the medication. Pharmacological conditioning with placebo... Show moreBackground In pharmacological conditioning associations are formed between the effects of medication and contextual factors related to the medication. Pharmacological conditioning with placebo medication can result in comparable treatment effects and reduced side effects compared to regular treatment in various clinical populations, and may be applied to achieve enhanced drug effects. In the current study protocol, pharmacological conditioning is applied to achieve enhanced treatment effects in patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The results from this study broaden the knowledge on the potential of pharmacological conditioning and provide a potential innovative treatment option to optimize long-term pharmacological treatment effectiveness for patients with inflammatory conditions, such as recent-onset RA. Methods A multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial is conducted in patients with recent-onset RA. Participants start on standardized pharmacological treatment for 16 weeks, which consists of methotrexate (MTX) 15 mg/week and a tapered schedule of prednisone 60 mg or 30 mg. After 4 months, participants in clinical remission (based on the rheumatologist's opinion and a targeted score below 1.6 on a 44-joint disease activity score (DAS44)) are randomized to 1 of 2 groups: (1) the control group (C), which continues with a standardized treatment schedule of MTX 15 mg/week or (2) the pharmacological conditioning group (PC), which receives an MTX treatment schedule in alternating high and low dosages. In the case of persistent clinical remission after 8 months, treatment is tapered and discontinued linearly in the C group and variably in the PC group. Both groups receive the same cumulative amount of MTX during each period. Logistic regression analysis is used to compare the proportion of participants with drug-free clinical remission after 12 months between the C group and the PC group. Secondary outcome measures include clinical functioning, laboratory assessments, and self-reported measures after each 4-month period up to 18 months after study start. Discussion The results from this study broaden the knowledge on the potential of pharmacological conditioning and provide a potential innovative treatment option to optimize long-term pharmacological treatment effectiveness in patients with inflammatory conditions, such as recent-onset RA. Show less
Burgers, L.E.; Pol, J.A. van der; Huizinga, T.W.J.; Allaart, C.F.; Helm-van Mil, A.H.M. van der 2019
