Northern Institute for Cancer Research

Prof. Northern Institute for Cancer Research

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

33Years (1994-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 October 2017 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
BSBeatrice Seddon
Beatrice Seddon
SSSandra J Strauss
Sandra J Strauss
JWJeremy Whelan
Jeremy Whelan
MLMichael Leahy
Michael Leahy
PWPenella J Woll
Penella J Woll
SBSandy Beare
Sandy Beare
For many years, first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma has been doxorubicin. This study compared gemcitabine and docetaxel versus doxorubicin as first-line treatment for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. The GeDDiS trial was a randomised controlled phase 3 trial done in 24 UK hospitals and one Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK) hospital. Eligible patients had histologically confirmed locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma of Trojani grade 2 or 3, disease progression before enrolment, and no previous chemotherapy for sarcoma or previous doxorubicin for any cancer. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive six cycles of intravenous doxorubicin 75 mg/m2 on day 1 every 3 weeks, or intravenous gemcitabine 675 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 and intravenous docetaxel 75 mg/m2 on day 8 every 3 weeks. Treatment was assigned using a minimisation algorithm incorporating a random element. Randomisation was stratified by age (≤18 years vs >18 years) and histological subtype. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks in the intention-to-treat population. Adherence to treatment and toxicity were analysed in the safety population, consisting of all patients who received at least one dose of their randomised treatment. The trial was registered with the European Clinical Trials (EudraCT) database (no 2009-014907-29) and with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry (ISRCTN07742377), and is now closed to patient entry. Between Dec 3, 2010, and Jan 20, 2014, 257 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the two treatment groups (129 to doxorubicin and 128 to gemcitabine and docetaxel). Median follow-up was 22 months (IQR 15·7-29·3). The proportion of patients alive and progression free at 24 weeks did not differ between those who received doxorubicin versus those who received gemcitabine and docetaxel (46·3% [95% CI 37·5-54·6] vs 46·4% [37·5-54·8]); median progression-free survival (23·3 weeks [95% CI 19·6-30·4] vs 23·7 weeks [18·1-20·0]; hazard ratio [HR] for progression-free survival 1·28, 95% CI 0·99-1·65, p=0·06). The most common grade 3 and 4 adverse events were neutropenia (32 [25%] of 128 patients who received doxorubicin and 25 [20%] of 126 patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel), febrile neutropenia (26 [20%] and 15 [12%]), fatigue (eight [6%] and 17 [14%]), oral mucositis (18 [14%] and two [2%]), and pain (ten [8%] and 13 [10%]). The three most common serious adverse events, representing 111 (39%) of all 285 serious adverse events recorded, were febrile neutropenia (27 [17%] of 155 serious adverse events in patients who received doxorubicin and 15 [12%] of 130 serious adverse events in patients who received gemcitabine and docetaxel, fever (18 [12%] and 19 [15%]), and neutropenia (22 [14%] and ten [8%]). 154 (60%) of 257 patients died in the intention-to-treat population: 74 (57%) of 129 patients in the doxorubicin group and 80 (63%) of 128 in the gemcitabine and docetaxel group. No deaths were related to the treatment, but two deaths were due to a combination of disease progression and treatment. Doxorubicin should remain the standard first-line treatment for most patients with advanced soft-tissue sarcoma. These results provide evidence for clinicians to consider with their patients when selecting first-line treatment for locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Cancer Research UK, Sarcoma UK, and Clinical Trial Unit Kantonsspital St Gallen.

1 January 2009 in Pediatric Nephrology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MRMalin M. Rhodin
Malin M. Rhodin
BABrian J. Anderson
Brian J. Anderson
APA. Michael Peters
A. Michael Peters
MCMalcolm G. Coulthard
Malcolm G. Coulthard
BWBarry Wilkins
Barry Wilkins
NHNick Holford
Nick Holford

21 June 2018 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
PBPenelope Rachel Brock
Penelope Rachel Brock
RMRudolf Maibach
Rudolf Maibach
MCMargaret Childs
Margaret Childs
KRKaukab Rajput
Kaukab Rajput
DRDerek Roebuck
Derek Roebuck
ENEdward A. Neuwelt
Edward A. Neuwelt
Cisplatin chemotherapy and surgery are effective treatments for children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma but may cause considerable and irreversible hearing loss. This trial compared cisplatin with cisplatin plus delayed administration of sodium thiosulfate, aiming to reduce the incidence and severity of cisplatin-related ototoxic effects without jeopardizing overall and event-free survival. We randomly assigned children older than 1 month and younger than 18 years of age who had standard-risk hepatoblastoma (≤3 involved liver sectors, no metastatic disease, and an alpha-fetoprotein level of >100 ng per milliliter) to receive cisplatin alone (at a dose of 80 mg per square meter of body-surface area, administered over a period of 6 hours) or cisplatin plus sodium thiosulfate (at a dose of 20 g per square meter, administered intravenously over a 15-minute period, 6 hours after the discontinuation of cisplatin) for four preoperative and two postoperative courses. The primary end point was the absolute hearing threshold, as measured by pure-tone audiometry, at a minimum age of 3.5 years. Hearing loss was assessed according to the Brock grade (on a scale from 0 to 4, with higher grades indicating greater hearing loss). The main secondary end points were overall survival and event-free survival at 3 years. A total of 109 children were randomly assigned to receive cisplatin plus sodium thiosulfate (57 children) or cisplatin alone (52) and could be evaluated. Sodium thiosulfate was associated with few high-grade toxic effects. The absolute hearing threshold was assessed in 101 children. Hearing loss of grade 1 or higher occurred in 18 of 55 children (33%) in the cisplatin–sodium thiosulfate group, as compared with 29 of 46 (63%) in the cisplatin-alone group, indicating a 48% lower incidence of hearing loss in the cisplatin–sodium thiosulfate group (relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.81; P=0.002). At a median of 52 months of follow-up, the 3-year rates of event-free survival were 82% (95% CI, 69 to 90) in the cisplatin–sodium thiosulfate group and 79% (95% CI, 65 to 88) in the cisplatin-alone group, and the 3-year rates of overall survival were 98% (95% CI, 88 to 100) and 92% (95% CI, 81 to 97), respectively. The addition of sodium thiosulfate, administered 6 hours after cisplatin chemotherapy, resulted in a lower incidence of cisplatin-induced hearing loss among children with standard-risk hepatoblastoma, without jeopardizing overall or event-free survival. (Funded by Cancer Research UK and others; SIOPEL 6 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00652132; EudraCT number, 2007-002402-21.)

18 January 2023 in Clinical Cancer Research
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
SHSarah Halford
Sarah Halford
Northern Institute for Cancer ResearchNorthern Institute for Cancer Research
Northern Institute for Cancer Research
SWStephen R. Wedge
Stephen R. Wedge
GPGeoffrey S. Payne
Geoffrey S. Payne
CBChris M. Bacon
Chris M. Bacon
RPRuth Plummer
Ruth Plummer
Purpose: Inhibition of monocarboxylate transporter (MCT) 1–mediated lactate transport may have cytostatic and/or cytotoxic effects on tumor cells. We report results from the dose-escalation part of a first-in-human trial of AZD3965, a first-in-class MCT1 inhibitor, in advanced cancer. Patients and Methods: This multicentre, phase I, dose-escalation and dose-expansion trial enrolled patients with advanced solid tumors or lymphoma and no standard therapy options. Exclusion criteria included history of retinal and/or cardiac disease, due to MCT1 expression in the eye and heart. Patients received daily oral AZD3965 according to a 3+3 then rolling six design. Primary objectives were to assess safety and determine the MTD and/or recommended phase II dose (RP2D). Secondary objectives for dose escalation included measurement of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic activity. Exploratory biomarkers included tumor expression of MCT1 and MCT4, functional imaging of biological impact, and metabolomics. Results: During dose escalation, 40 patients received AZD3965 at 5–30 mg once daily or 10 or 15 mg twice daily. Treatment-emergent adverse events were primarily grade 1 and/or 2, most commonly electroretinogram changes (retinopathy), fatigue, anorexia, and constipation. Seven patients receiving ≥20 mg daily experienced dose-limiting toxicities (DLT): grade 3 cardiac troponin rise (n = 1), asymptomatic ocular DLTs (n = 5), and grade 3 acidosis (n = 1). Plasma pharmacokinetics demonstrated attainment of target concentrations; pharmacodynamic measurements indicated on-target activity. Conclusions: AZD3965 is tolerated at doses that produce target engagement. DLTs were on-target and primarily dose-dependent, asymptomatic, reversible ocular changes. An RP2D of 10 mg twice daily was established for use in dose expansion in cancers that generally express high MCT1/low MCT4).

1 August 2014 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
Nicolas WidmerNicolas Widmer
Nicolas Widmer
CBChristophe Bardin
Christophe Bardin
ÉCétienne Chatelut
étienne Chatelut
APAngelo Paci
Angelo Paci
JBJos Beijnen
Jos Beijnen
AAAlain Astier
Alain Astier

1 August 2014 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
APAngelo Paci
Angelo Paci
Northern Institute for Cancer ResearchNorthern Institute for Cancer Research
Northern Institute for Cancer Research
CBChristophe Bardin
Christophe Bardin
DLDominique Levêque
Dominique Levêque
Nicolas WidmerNicolas Widmer
Nicolas Widmer
ÉCétienne Chatelut
étienne Chatelut