The Maria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of Oncology

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles ("MISEV") guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these "MISEV2014" guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points.

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab (a programmed death 1 [PD-1] checkpoint inhibitor) and ipilimumab (a cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 [CTLA-4] checkpoint inhibitor) have been shown to have complementary activity in metastatic melanoma. In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 study, nivolumab alone or nivolumab plus ipilimumab was compared with ipilimumab alone in patients with metastatic melanoma. METHODS: We assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, 945 previously untreated patients with unresectable stage III or IV melanoma to nivolumab alone, nivolumab plus ipilimumab, or ipilimumab alone. Progression-free survival and overall survival were coprimary end points. Results regarding progression-free survival are presented here. RESULTS: The median progression-free survival was 11.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.9 to 16.7) with nivolumab plus ipilimumab, as compared with 2.9 months (95% CI, 2.8 to 3.4) with ipilimumab (hazard ratio for death or disease progression, 0.42; 99.5% CI, 0.31 to 0.57; P<0.001), and 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.3 to 9.5) with nivolumab (hazard ratio for the comparison with ipilimumab, 0.57; 99.5% CI, 0.43 to 0.76; P<0.001). In patients with tumors positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1), the median progression-free survival was 14.0 months in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, but in patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, progression-free survival was longer with the combination therapy than with nivolumab alone (11.2 months [95% CI, 8.0 to not reached] vs. 5.3 months [95% CI, 2.8 to 7.1]). Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 16.3% of the patients in the nivolumab group, 55.0% of those in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, and 27.3% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma, nivolumab alone or combined with ipilimumab resulted in significantly longer progression-free survival than ipilimumab alone. In patients with PD-L1-negative tumors, the combination of PD-1 and CTLA-4 blockade was more effective than either agent alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab combined with ipilimumab resulted in longer progression-free survival and a higher objective response rate than ipilimumab alone in a phase 3 trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 3-year overall survival outcomes in this trial. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a 1:1:1 ratio, patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive nivolumab at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight plus ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks; nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks plus placebo; or ipilimumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses plus placebo, until progression, the occurrence of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. Randomization was stratified according to programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) status, BRAF mutation status, and metastasis stage. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group versus the ipilimumab group. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 36 months, the median overall survival had not been reached in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and was 37.6 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.55 [P<0.001]; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.65 [P<0.001]). The overall survival rate at 3 years was 58% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 52% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 34% in the ipilimumab group. The safety profile was unchanged from the initial report. Treatment-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 59% of the patients in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group, in 21% of those in the nivolumab group, and in 28% of those in the ipilimumab group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with advanced melanoma, significantly longer overall survival occurred with combination therapy with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone than with ipilimumab alone. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505 .).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab was associated with higher rates of objective response than chemotherapy in a phase 3 study involving patients with ipilimumab-refractory metastatic melanoma. The use of nivolumab in previously untreated patients with advanced melanoma has not been tested in a phase 3 controlled study. METHODS: We randomly assigned 418 previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation to receive nivolumab (at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks and dacarbazine-matched placebo every 3 weeks) or dacarbazine (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area every 3 weeks and nivolumab-matched placebo every 2 weeks). The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At 1 year, the overall rate of survival was 72.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 65.5 to 78.9) in the nivolumab group, as compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 33.0 to 50.9) in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death, 0.42; 99.79% CI, 0.25 to 0.73; P<0.001). The median progression-free survival was 5.1 months in the nivolumab group versus 2.2 months in the dacarbazine group (hazard ratio for death or progression of disease, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.56; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 40.0% (95% CI, 33.3 to 47.0) in the nivolumab group versus 13.9% (95% CI, 9.5 to 19.4) in the dacarbazine group (odds ratio, 4.06; P<0.001). The survival benefit with nivolumab versus dacarbazine was observed across prespecified subgroups, including subgroups defined by status regarding the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1). Common adverse events associated with nivolumab included fatigue, pruritus, and nausea. Drug-related adverse events of grade 3 or 4 occurred in 11.7% of the patients treated with nivolumab and 17.6% of those treated with dacarbazine. CONCLUSIONS: Nivolumab was associated with significant improvements in overall survival and progression-free survival, as compared with dacarbazine, among previously untreated patients who had metastatic melanoma without a BRAF mutation. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb; CheckMate 066 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01721772.).

BACKGROUND Nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone resulted in longer progression-free and overall survival than ipilimumab alone in a trial involving patients with advanced melanoma. We now report 5-year outcomes in the trial. METHODS We randomly assigned patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma to receive one of the following regimens: nivolumab (at a dose of 1 mg per kilogram of body weight) plus ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram) every 3 weeks for four doses, followed by nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks); nivolumab (3 mg per kilogram every 2 weeks) plus ipilimumab-matched placebo; or ipilimumab (3 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses) plus nivolumab-matched placebo. The two primary end points were progression-free survival and overall survival in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and in the nivolumab group, as compared with the ipilimumab group. RESULTS At a minimum follow-up of 60 months, the median overall survival was more than 60.0 months (median not reached) in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 36.9 months in the nivolumab group, as compared with 19.9 months in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for death with nivolumab plus ipilimumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.52; hazard ratio for death with nivolumab vs. ipilimumab, 0.63). Overall survival at 5 years was 52% in the nivolumab-plus-ipilimumab group and 44% in the nivolumab group, as compared with 26% in the ipilimumab group. No sustained deterioration of health-related quality of life was observed during or after treatment with nivolumab plus ipilimumab or with nivolumab alone. No new late toxic effects were noted. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with advanced melanoma, sustained longterm overall survival at 5 years was observed in a greater percentage of patients who received nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone than in those who received ipilimumab alone, with no apparent loss of quality of life in the patients who received regimens containing nivolumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and others; CheckMate 067 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01844505.).

BACKGROUND: Cetuximab is effective in platinum-resistant recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. We investigated the efficacy of cetuximab plus platinum-based chemotherapy as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. METHODS: We randomly assigned 220 of 442 eligible patients with untreated recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck to receive cisplatin (at a dose of 100 mg per square meter of body-surface area on day 1) or carboplatin (at an area under the curve of 5 mg per milliliter per minute, as a 1-hour intravenous infusion on day 1) plus fluorouracil (at a dose of 1000 mg per square meter per day for 4 days) every 3 weeks for a maximum of 6 cycles and 222 patients to receive the same chemotherapy plus cetuximab (at a dose of 400 mg per square meter initially, as a 2-hour intravenous infusion, then 250 mg per square meter, as a 1-hour intravenous infusion per week) for a maximum of 6 cycles. Patients with stable disease who received chemotherapy plus cetuximab continued to receive cetuximab until disease progression or unacceptable toxic effects, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Adding cetuximab to platinum-based chemotherapy with fluorouracil (platinum-fluorouracil) significantly prolonged the median overall survival from 7.4 months in the chemotherapy-alone group to 10.1 months in the group that received chemotherapy plus cetuximab (hazard ratio for death, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.64 to 0.99; P=0.04). The addition of cetuximab prolonged the median progression-free survival time from 3.3 to 5.6 months (hazard ratio for progression, 0.54; P<0.001) and increased the response rate from 20% to 36% (P<0.001). The most common grade 3 or 4 adverse events in the chemotherapy-alone and cetuximab groups were anemia (19% and 13%, respectively), neutropenia (23% and 22%), and thrombocytopenia (11% in both groups). Sepsis occurred in 9 patients in the cetuximab group and in 1 patient in the chemotherapy-alone group (P=0.02). Of 219 patients receiving cetuximab, 9% had grade 3 skin reactions and 3% had grade 3 or 4 infusion-related reactions. There were no cetuximab-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: As compared with platinum-based chemotherapy plus fluorouracil alone, cetuximab plus platinum-fluorouracil chemotherapy improved overall survival when given as first-line treatment in patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous-cell carcinoma of the head and neck. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00122460.)

BACKGROUND: Trastuzumab improves survival in the adjuvant treatment of HER-positive breast cancer, although combined therapy with anthracycline-based regimens has been associated with cardiac toxicity. We wanted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a new nonanthracycline regimen with trastuzumab. METHODS: We randomly assigned 3222 women with HER2-positive early-stage breast cancer to receive doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel every 3 weeks (AC-T), the same regimen plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab (AC-T plus trastuzumab), or docetaxel and carboplatin plus 52 weeks of trastuzumab (TCH). The primary study end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points were overall survival and safety. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 65 months, 656 events triggered this protocol-specified analysis. The estimated disease-free survival rates at 5 years were 75% among patients receiving AC-T, 84% among those receiving AC-T plus trastuzumab, and 81% among those receiving TCH. Estimated rates of overall survival were 87%, 92%, and 91%, respectively. No significant differences in efficacy (disease-free or overall survival) were found between the two trastuzumab regimens, whereas both were superior to AC-T. The rates of congestive heart failure and cardiac dysfunction were significantly higher in the group receiving AC-T plus trastuzumab than in the TCH group (P<0.001). Eight cases of acute leukemia were reported: seven in the groups receiving the anthracycline-based regimens and one in the TCH group subsequent to receiving an anthracycline outside the study. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improved disease-free and overall survival among women with HER2-positive breast cancer. The risk-benefit ratio favored the nonanthracycline TCH regimen over AC-T plus trastuzumab, given its similar efficacy, fewer acute toxic effects, and lower risks of cardiotoxicity and leukemia. (Funded by Sanofi-Aventis and Genentech; BCIRG-006 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00021255.).

BACKGROUND: The BRAF inhibitors vemurafenib and dabrafenib have shown efficacy as monotherapies in patients with previously untreated metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations. Combining dabrafenib and the MEK inhibitor trametinib, as compared with dabrafenib alone, enhanced antitumor activity in this population of patients. METHODS: In this open-label, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 704 patients with metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600 mutation to receive either a combination of dabrafenib (150 mg twice daily) and trametinib (2 mg once daily) or vemurafenib (960 mg twice daily) orally as first-line therapy. The primary end point was overall survival. RESULTS: At the preplanned interim overall survival analysis, which was performed after 77% of the total number of expected events occurred, the overall survival rate at 12 months was 72% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67 to 77) in the combination-therapy group and 65% (95% CI, 59 to 70) in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio for death in the combination-therapy group, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.89; P=0.005). The prespecified interim stopping boundary was crossed, and the study was stopped for efficacy in July 2014. Median progression-free survival was 11.4 months in the combination-therapy group and 7.3 months in the vemurafenib group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.69; P<0.001). The objective response rate was 64% in the combination-therapy group and 51% in the vemurafenib group (P<0.001). Rates of severe adverse events and study-drug discontinuations were similar in the two groups. Cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma and keratoacanthoma occurred in 1% of patients in the combination-therapy group and 18% of those in the vemurafenib group. CONCLUSIONS: Dabrafenib plus trametinib, as compared with vemurafenib monotherapy, significantly improved overall survival in previously untreated patients with metastatic melanoma with BRAF V600E or V600K mutations, without increased overall toxicity. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

BACKGROUND: Nivolumab and ipilimumab are immune checkpoint inhibitors that have been approved for the treatment of advanced melanoma. In the United States, ipilimumab has also been approved as adjuvant therapy for melanoma on the basis of recurrence-free and overall survival rates that were higher than those with placebo in a phase 3 trial. We wanted to determine the efficacy of nivolumab versus ipilimumab for adjuvant therapy in patients with resected advanced melanoma. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind, phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned 906 patients (≥15 years of age) who were undergoing complete resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma to receive an intravenous infusion of either nivolumab at a dose of 3 mg per kilogram of body weight every 2 weeks (453 patients) or ipilimumab at a dose of 10 mg per kilogram every 3 weeks for four doses and then every 12 weeks (453 patients). The patients were treated for a period of up to 1 year or until disease recurrence, a report of unacceptable toxic effects, or withdrawal of consent. The primary end point was recurrence-free survival in the intention-to-treat population. RESULTS: At a minimum follow-up of 18 months, the 12-month rate of recurrence-free survival was 70.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 66.1 to 74.5) in the nivolumab group and 60.8% (95% CI, 56.0 to 65.2) in the ipilimumab group (hazard ratio for disease recurrence or death, 0.65; 97.56% CI, 0.51 to 0.83; P<0.001). Treatment-related grade 3 or 4 adverse events were reported in 14.4% of the patients in the nivolumab group and in 45.9% of those in the ipilimumab group; treatment was discontinued because of any adverse event in 9.7% and 42.6% of the patients, respectively. Two deaths (0.4%) related to toxic effects were reported in the ipilimumab group more than 100 days after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing resection of stage IIIB, IIIC, or IV melanoma, adjuvant therapy with nivolumab resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival and a lower rate of grade 3 or 4 adverse events than adjuvant therapy with ipilimumab. (Funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical; CheckMate 238 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02388906 ; Eudra-CT number, 2014-002351-26 .).

BACKGROUND: Activating mutations in serine-threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. METHODS: In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. RESULTS: Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P<0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P=0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.).

Disorders of the brain can exhibit considerable epidemiological comorbidity and often share symptoms, provoking debate about their etiologic overlap. We quantified the genetic sharing of 25 brain disorders from genome-wide association studies of 265,218 patients and 784,643 control participants and assessed their relationship to 17 phenotypes from 1,191,588 individuals. Psychiatric disorders share common variant risk, whereas neurological disorders appear more distinct from one another and from the psychiatric disorders. We also identified significant sharing between disorders and a number of brain phenotypes, including cognitive measures. Further, we conducted simulations to explore how statistical power, diagnostic misclassification, and phenotypic heterogeneity affect genetic correlations. These results highlight the importance of common genetic variation as a risk factor for brain disorders and the value of heritability-based methods in understanding their etiology.

BACKGROUND: Although rates of detection of adenomatous lesions (tumors or polyps) and cecal intubation are recommended for use as quality indicators for screening colonoscopy, these measurements have not been validated, and their importance remains uncertain. METHODS: We used a multivariate Cox proportional-hazards regression model to evaluate the influence of quality indicators for colonoscopy on the risk of interval cancer. Data were collected from 186 endoscopists who were involved in a colonoscopy-based colorectal-cancer screening program involving 45,026 subjects. Interval cancer was defined as colorectal adenocarcinoma that was diagnosed between the time of screening colonoscopy and the scheduled time of surveillance colonoscopy. We derived data on quality indicators for colonoscopy from the screening program's database and data on interval cancers from cancer registries. The primary aim of the study was to assess the association between quality indicators for colonoscopy and the risk of interval cancer. RESULTS: A total of 42 interval colorectal cancers were identified during a period of 188,788 person-years. The endoscopist's rate of detection of adenomas was significantly associated with the risk of interval colorectal cancer (P=0.008), whereas the rate of cecal intubation was not significantly associated with this risk (P=0.50). The hazard ratios for adenoma detection rates of less than 11.0%, 11.0 to 14.9%, and 15.0 to 19.9%, as compared with a rate of 20.0% or higher, were 10.94 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.37 to 87.01), 10.75 (95% CI, 1.36 to 85.06), and 12.50 (95% CI, 1.51 to 103.43), respectively (P=0.02 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: The adenoma detection rate is an independent predictor of the risk of interval colorectal cancer after screening colonoscopy.

This is the third European Crohn’s and Colitis Organisation [ECCO] consensus guideline that addresses ulcerative colitis [UC]. It has been drafted by 28 ECCO members from 14 European countries. It is derived from and updates the previous ECCO consensus advice on UC.1–3 All the authors recognise and are grateful to previous ECCO members who contributed to creating the previous consensus guidelines1–6 on which some of the text is based. Attention is also drawn to other ECCO consensus guidelines which have contributed to this endeavour, on extra-intestinal manifestations [EIMs],7 malignancy,8 imaging,9 small bowel endoscopy,10 opportunistic infections [OIs],11 surgery,12 endoscopy,13 pathology,14 anaemia,15 reproduction and pregnancy,16 and paediatric UC.17 The guideline has been condensed into two papers, the first detailing definitions, classification, diagnosis, imaging, pathology, and management of special situations [EIMs, pregnancy, cancer surveillance, surgery, and ileo-anal pouch disorders of UC]; and the second describing current therapeutic management [treatment of active disease and maintenance of medically induced remission]. The strategy to define consensus was similar to that previously described in other ECCO consensus guidelines [available at www.ecco-ibd.eu]. Briefly, an open call for participants was made, with participants selected by the Guidelines’ Committee of ECCO [known as GuiCom] on the basis of their publication record and a personal statement. Working parties were established to review the consensus statements published in 2012,1–3 after which a recommendation was issued on whether they required revision based upon advances in the published literature. There was agreement that extensive review of histopathology, endoscopy, OI, anaemia, EIMs, surgery, and pregnancy was not required, as these subjects are reviewed in other recent ECCO guidelines7,11–16; rather, abbreviated text and selected statements from these guidelines specific to UC are provided. Paediatric UC is dealt with in a separate ECCO initiative17 which is currently being updated. Provisional ECCO statements and supporting text were written following a comprehensive literature review, then refined following two voting rounds which included national representative participation by ECCO’s 35 member countries. The level of evidence was graded according to the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine [www.cebm.net]. The ECCO statements were finalised by the authors at a meeting in Barcelona in October 2015 and represent consensus with agreement of at least 80% of participants. Consensus statements are intended to be read in context with their qualifying comments and not in isolation. The supporting text was then finalised under the direction of each working group leader [FM, FC, AD, PG, FR], including an updated literature search to October 2016 of the most relevant [eight] journals, before being integrated by a consensus leader [MH]. This consensus guideline is pictorially represented within the freely available ECCO e-Guide [http://www.e-guide.ecco-ibd.eu/]. UC is a lifelong disease arising from an interaction between genetic and environmental factors, observed predominantly in developed countries. Its precise aetiology is unknown, and therefore curative medical therapy is not yet available. Within Europe there is an east-west and north-south gradient, but the incidence appears to have increased in southern and eastern countries during recent years.18–20 Patients may live with a considerable symptom burden and high risk of disability21 despite medical treatment.22 Clinicians must advise and treat patients on the basis of currently available information. Despite robust evidence from rigorously conducted randomised trials, the strict and somewhat necessarily restrictive inclusion and exclusion criteria in trial design may limit translation of such evidence to ‘real-world’ patients. Ulcerative colitis [UC] is a chronic inflammatory condition that causes continuous mucosal inflammation of the colon, usually without granulomas on biopsy. It affects the rectum and to a variable extent the colon in a continuous fashion, and is characterised by a relapsing and remitting course.23 Inflammatory bowel disease unclassified [IBDU] is the term best suited for a minority of cases in which a definitive distinction between UC, Crohn’s disease, or other causes of colitis cannot be made after taking into account the history, endoscopic appearance, histopathology of multiple mucosal biopsies, and appropriate radiology.23,24 Indeterminate colitis is a term reserved for pathologists to describe a colectomy specimen with overlapping features of UC and Crohn’s disease.24,25 Detailed information on definitions can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC online.1,23,24,26–39 Distribution of UC [adapted from Silverberg et al.23]. Disease activity in UC [adapted from Truelove & Witts32]. Montréal classification of disease activity in UC [adapted from Silverberg et and et Disease extent whether therapy and and of It is by the extent at as and extensive colitis of inflammation the management and the of for a therapy in the of or is usually the for and therapy with is appropriate for extensive of colitis the risk of of or cancer and the and the of Patients with extensive colitis have the risk of with have a risk similar to the Patients with colitis an their risk that of patients with extensive colitis as disease patients with and extensive colitis are to have patients with not such It be that the extent at may the extent of disease as with and are to the extent of information and risk for of or colitis may in of patients with Disease and of of disease have not been imaging, and endoscopic including histopathology, on management is as and at of a inflammatory of disease It be to the of active colitis by and before which may causes of that active disease such as mucosal Crohn’s disease, or bowel and patients with active disease including to Patients with an appropriate also have to a from of patients are in at during a a of a relapsing after of Disease activity in the first after to an increased of of active a an was between the to first and the of a the the was patients a for the maintenance of in patients with at patients from to at and from to at in the of described the in patients in the first following of UC between and the most recent the of patients an during the first after was a or within the first but and an activity at least during the first is also UC, a chronic inflammatory was in and were in of patients with an inflammatory after of with who without such an were in with and mucosal The of bowel inflammation is also a risk for in patients with extensive Detailed information on the of can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC and and are of have been with of The is not as in UC as is in Crohn’s disease for the of disease in colitis have been established for and patients a to following for colitis with to a is for and have been but has been to be to The most are and other such as and have also at has for and of disease a with endoscopic and to can be as a for in patients with inflammatory bowel disease of was with an increased risk of It must be that of these is specific for UC, they represent active with disease there is of The consensus group that the best to define is a of with and mucosal at classification of ulcerative colitis according to at is of as disease has a according to the of is as the for and of patients with UC to have disease and and with All current available for UC have an in with The risk of in patients with UC the of is an in patients with UC, as the risk for The of genetic or is not for the classification of ulcerative colitis Detailed information on can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC of ulcerative colitis are upon extent and of disease and and and are bowel and colitis UC in and the may be made at small in incidence has been in some after the of UC appears to The inflammation in the rectum and in a and to a variable extent of the colon, or mucosal The extent of inflammation may or but after disease the of inflammation to the extent of previous in the of The that UC continuous inflammation been by of a in and of patients with active UC the of mucosal disease, and may according to disease in for extensive UC from most cases of Patients with active disease also of and patients with usually with and may in UC, or the of Crohn’s The of UC is usually are for or before medical advice is with a in with including and EIMs, in or and may the in of cases and can in of of ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease the risk for ulcerative colitis for before and the risk and of UC may to ulcerative colitis of patients with UC have an increased risk of the The risk of UC is in but is also in and of UC as as in of patients with Crohn’s disease in a and the of but may not the of the have a risk of the disease, which is extensive and to with who have or but the data are and during or are to a risk of UC in The of is to that of but not to the of is after the of UC, the on the of disease is and is to may the evidence from and a trial that with is medical the of and and extra-intestinal with and of inflammatory bowel disease or and previous be The of UC is in the context of or of colitis be and be and and for and and may be may be in patients with or disease on on the extent and of of patients with or activity is usually from on Patients with a may and bowel for of ulcerative colitis not It is established by imaging, and endoscopic including be with review after an may be The of UC is characterised by of and of continuous in of the as a by The that of patients a in The of of is usually during the first and may be characterised as continuous UC without or the recent the of patients with UC in from at the of to after of It is to the diagnosis, and of disease, as these and disease It is to the to to a diagnosis, but mucosal active UC as the of of the may to Crohn’s disease or be during the first and and The be including be and be diagnosis, have a inflammatory and and a for is an of of chronic inflammation may be in or The may as a of the chronic inflammatory or chronic active disease, and which the of an UC, and with the of with patients with an is with an and have been as to the for colectomy in after a of extensive colitis an increased risk of is specific to UC from or other causes of be to and for may be according to the medical history, for the of for or other or with are required at and may be required to disease is in patients with colitis This for and is a and has been with and ECCO guidelines with disease be in the of or of can in UC, not in patients with may not disease can or It be in patients who The for relevant in patients with colitis has not been but most of in the inclusion with on histopathology not necessarily but multiple are usually including information on can be reviewed in the ECCO Consensus on and in a recent The most are and are in to of patients with UC and in of patients with Crohn’s the current of these their for the of UC and for therapeutic is not such as and have been as of inflammation in appears to be the most the of in patients for in the of disease with endoscopic and in the of and to with the to between of a in the of UC a to inflammation and to be a to a of patients by and has been described in with a or inflammation in the rectum is to to inflammation in the is to as a and may be observed in patients with the of and or a in of the small bowel in to an is The of patients with inflammation to be similar to with of the as a is in to of patients with inflammation has been with a and a risk of after pouch a recent a similar in patients with an of inflammation with with a in of disease and of or inflammation from the into is and is observed in to of patients with extensive may in patients without which the that that from a of into the Patients with to be to a of which may an increased risk of colon in not to be with pouch of the small bowel be in cases of to UC from Crohn’s bowel by or or endoscopy, as reviewed in the ECCO consensus on in Crohn’s and small bowel in is not is the of an to Crohn’s disease in to an is for endoscopic disease activity in ulcerative colitis are available. The of a endoscopic is to of ulcerative colitis patients and to a for inflammatory bowel disease to is for patients criteria for to which may to increased and The classification of UC was by Truelove and in This classification is to be the for of in of to and the of patients with colitis have inflammatory or and with a for and of be to and to the extent of disease and for features that to The extent of disease with the of in a of the extent of disease was in and in The of mucosal by or two of small bowel is with a to the of colitis and may be required is as a on with high in which histopathology be with a within before is in patients with colitis is not in in patients on criteria for colitis with mucosal on the of these and of which can be by is of is appropriate at for or ulcerative colitis or colectomy Despite the of disease in risk of and of the of after has been a mucosal after of was with a risk of in of the patients with mucosal with of without of patients who endoscopic as a of inflammation at and on during of in to of patients that to endoscopic in patients with UC, who were the disease and endoscopic after and and then at the third were to patients with or between and in the of and colectomy were of mucosal was the with and a disease patients with UC with and in that with endoscopic as with to after patients in The most endoscopic of ulcerative colitis is with of inflammation and ulcerative colitis is by mucosal and at the and in a and The between and is usually and may within in in the endoscopic of disease activity is and have been to the of endoscopic and are within the for UC, which is for trial The Ulcerative Colitis of the and the of and each with or of This is the first endoscopic of in The is the of in the of the colon at the of the a of to the of a a was made to the of the a to a of that the of the from to for ulcerative for The endoscopic features of inflammation are and at least of the active colitis is characterised by a of to the of the and with a and mucosal to colitis is characterised by and in et to Crohn’s disease, in UC are in The of is a disease, mucosal can in of and The of in UC has therefore been the of information on colon can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC Detailed information on can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC in ulcerative multiple endoscopic be to by be are not or the is not UC, a an increased risk for and the be by a second is the most in the of and then management in a is to a the mucosal to the and extra-intestinal is for diagnosis, of disease and of and The following and updates of the ECCO guideline on UC is a chronic inflammatory to the of features have been and they can be into mucosal and information on on the can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC a of ulcerative a of two from at least the colon the and the be be by including endoscopic of disease and current be by in or an before the features found in UC are observed in of patients within of the first of The distinction from colitis which is characterised by and is therefore a is the with the for the of ulcerative colitis and the of a inflammatory not ulcerative colitis at an after an may to and a definitive by features or has been as the with the for UC It can be in of patients within after this the of is but may into a the disease mucosal or mucosal and an or mucosal during the of disease least after The of ulcerative colitis is based upon the of and mucosal and a inflammatory with with active inflammation and The of features for UC has not been of UC is in of cases two or of the following features an and in the of of inflammation from to a of ulcerative colitis may the of of these is in the of from patients to an UC a of continuous inflammation that in the rectum and with a in The between the and the is can disease, the extent of during the of the disease or after may such as from continuous to inflammation of the of these features is to in the of to Crohn’s disease, the may features to and as as of and increased inflammation is usually not observed disease is characterised by the of active mucosal features to chronic mucosal such as and as as may mucosal is characterised by the of and inflammatory the can some features of such as with and of usually the of is from endoscopic mucosal inflammation may in cases with disease and has been with of mucosal inflammation following has been can be to between and active disease, as as to the of disease have been for this in therapeutic of or mucosal a definitions of from inflammation with to of the as in with of an increased with of or a high of been with a risk of The of histopathology to and to the level of inflammation may have in therapeutic mucosal is from endoscopic mucosal have a for diagnosis, with the at and endoscopic activity in and disease, but for The of histopathology as the or to disease activity is in to and may be in and with There and updates of the ECCO guideline on and is in UC, found in of for of et criteria for on the level of patients without or evidence of active disease, is an appropriate the of a to may be with the of or evidence of the criteria for of chronic disease are and the level is between and a of and of chronic disease is The most of in UC are of chronic disease, and a of or anaemia, and are but also be is by the as a in to a of in and in All UC patients be for anaemia, and this a and be with and is with and The level of with and is by the of and in et is in ulcerative colitis patients is Detailed information on and can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC is the second most in UC, in of can be as and of with ulcerative colitis is based on of inflammation and exclusion of other specific of classification for has been but not is and affects in an This is and and is with disease is a and which affects small is of UC and can for to of is on the basis of features of inflammatory with or features of and The of is made according to the is the current as can inflammation before and The of management is the of of and of trial in patients is of the UC usually within Patients may from and Patients with usually or for symptom for be with a and are to be in with patients with active to or of are The and of and in are The of not as the to the risk of the with not is based on which be in patients with active UC, to or with disease and are the statements to in et Patients on therapy and or with a of be or other as these can statements & in et of is made on a be is usually based on that of the ulcerative are required in cases and can be with or usually affects the of the the and has a It is to disease and is based on that of the are usually or or may be can be with or and or are by a as most on the and to The of with disease activity is are to be the first of has been and has to in therefore be a to is not or are an but advice is to on and inflammation can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC UC It can be and usually to and of the not to an and may has to UC, is has an and is The of to of to an usually of or or and have each been to be of in cases statements & in et the most condition UC chronic and are also in these patients. of the to treat UC have the to is a risk for and colon is as a in patients with for is and small is a be statements to in et was to the of and to the risk of in but therapy has been to to or the was with a disease and therefore be the of to disease with is the statements to in et or after of in UC patients is in et and in et on and disease can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC Ulcerative colitis patients at risk of opportunistic infections are with in and with and a of infections be is an risk for opportunistic infections to are according to the for Disease and is as a by a that has under for can be or UC patients are not but may have as a of their medical in et is an risk for and in the risk of in a of for All for the of OI, and the of at a may an increased risk of This risk is of the and of but may be by the of OI, have not been to the risk of All ulcerative colitis patients be for at patients with also be is in patients with ulcerative colitis of is in inflammatory bowel disease, by the disease and by the be after of the may be required to of be in patients at risk and for at least after has patients who are with high to of the of in to of with therapy in ulcerative colitis be but therapy is not is the increased risk of UC patients be to is not a for in et UC patients also be for the be by not a with or is but they can the of in on or can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC information on and can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC of in patients with is increased and is in the be by a of history, and according to and national be at and before therapy are to the and are in of is to and be in patients being with with the Patients with therapy before patients with active UC and be after of in et of active therapy must be and for at least in et be to UC patients before and be before can to after & in et UC patients taking who be for infections and UC patients therapy infections with in et active infections are is statements to in et the risk of and infections with in et The to or infections in et therapy be during and disease be before Ulcerative colitis is an risk for with and are in to disease It to be established this to patients with ulcerative be disease, has been to be in patients without ulcerative colitis and is therefore disease, of be by risk and are of is in has been to be in of to and a of to an increased risk for with patients with inflammatory bowel disease are to can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC There is evidence that ulcerative colitis affects of in with ulcerative colitis the for UC patients are to have similar as the but patients from of as they to not to be by UC can and in et causes and is in patients to a the of are and pouch in patients may to and by to an or in et The in after pouch is to that of subjects in et at a of disease, the risk of is the as in at a of active disease the risk of activity during pregnancy may the of ulcerative colitis Patients be to during to the most appropriate a with and is in et Disease activity at or during pregnancy is with and The risk of in from with ulcerative colitis not to be increased to most ulcerative colitis is of risk to the for and information on of can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC of ulcerative colitis be in patients who to in to the risk of during pregnancy during pregnancy a high risk of and and are best and without to these UC patients who be to their to disease and pregnancy in et to their during pregnancy, with and be as the a is an in specific situations be in a with for UC during pregnancy can to during the first and to in the third but is to represent a risk for the in et information on endoscopy, and can be found in Supplementary material, available as Supplementary data at ECCO-JCC is that UC is with an increased risk of the risk between et described a including and that after of disease the risk was that the incidence of in UC patients was the risk of may have been has a incidence of at at and at This may the increased of the of that inflammation or the to maintenance therapy or The risk of cancer in ulcerative colitis is increased with the is with disease extent and or inflammatory activity has been that is disease a of may by this in patients who are at colitis or in patients with Patients with extensive colitis the risk of colitis patients an risk is not increased in patients with UC to the without may be an for and a of cancer an risk for cancer The most risk for are an increased risk of to and disease may be of previous inflammatory and have also been found to be a risk of is with an increased the risk

BACKGROUND: The programmed death 1 (PD-1) inhibitor pembrolizumab has been found to prolong progression-free and overall survival among patients with advanced melanoma. We conducted a phase 3 double-blind trial to evaluate pembrolizumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with resected, high-risk stage III melanoma. METHODS: Patients with completely resected stage III melanoma were randomly assigned (with stratification according to cancer stage and geographic region) to receive 200 mg of pembrolizumab (514 patients) or placebo (505 patients) intravenously every 3 weeks for a total of 18 doses (approximately 1 year) or until disease recurrence or unacceptable toxic effects occurred. Recurrence-free survival in the overall intention-to-treat population and in the subgroup of patients with cancer that was positive for the PD-1 ligand (PD-L1) were the primary end points. Safety was also evaluated. RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 15 months, pembrolizumab was associated with significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo in the overall intention-to-treat population (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 75.4% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 71.3 to 78.9] vs. 61.0% [95% CI, 56.5 to 65.1]; hazard ratio for recurrence or death, 0.57; 98.4% CI, 0.43 to 0.74; P<0.001) and in the subgroup of 853 patients with PD-L1-positive tumors (1-year rate of recurrence-free survival, 77.1% [95% CI, 72.7 to 80.9] in the pembrolizumab group and 62.6% [95% CI, 57.7 to 67.0] in the placebo group; hazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.42 to 0.69; P<0.001). Adverse events of grades 3 to 5 that were related to the trial regimen were reported in 14.7% of the patients in the pembrolizumab group and in 3.4% of patients in the placebo group. There was one treatment-related death due to myositis in the pembrolizumab group. CONCLUSIONS: As adjuvant therapy for high-risk stage III melanoma, 200 mg of pembrolizumab administered every 3 weeks for up to 1 year resulted in significantly longer recurrence-free survival than placebo, with no new toxic effects identified. (Funded by Merck; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02362594 ; EudraCT number, 2014-004944-37 .).

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) gather over 80 histological entities, with even more molecular subsets, characterised by a low to very low incidence in all populations. The majority of sarcomas arise from the soft tissue (close to 75%), with ∼15% gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GISTs) and 10% bone sarcomas. These ESMO–EURACAN (European Society for Medical Oncology–European Reference Network for rare adult solid cancers) Clinical Practice Guidelines cover STSs, while GISTs are covered by dedicated ESMO–EURACAN Clinical Practice Guidelines [1].

Bipolar disorder is a heritable mental illness with complex etiology. We performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci. Bipolar disorder risk alleles were enriched in genes in synaptic signaling pathways and brain-expressed genes, particularly those with high specificity of expression in neurons of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Significant signal enrichment was found in genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics. Integrating expression quantitative trait locus data implicated 15 genes robustly linked to bipolar disorder via gene expression, encoding druggable targets such as HTR6, MCHR1, DCLK3 and FURIN. Analyses of bipolar disorder subtypes indicated high but imperfect genetic correlation between bipolar disorder type I and II and identified additional associated loci. Together, these results advance our understanding of the biological etiology of bipolar disorder, identify novel therapeutic leads and prioritize genes for functional follow-up studies.

Association analysis identifies 65 new breast cancer risk loci, predicts target genes for known risk loci and demonstrates a strong overlap with somatic driver genes in breast tumours. Genome-wide association studies for breast cancer have identified common genetic variation that influences susceptibility to this disease, but much of the genetic risk remains unexplained. Doug Easton and colleagues report a genome-wide association study for breast cancer in more than 122,000 cases and 105,000 controls. The authors genotyped a subset of these cases using OncoArray, a new, custom genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array for cancer genomics. Overall, they identify 65 loci newly associated with breast cancer susceptibility, and estimate that, together with 107 previously identified breast cancer susceptibility loci, these explain about 18 per cent of the familial relative risk of breast cancer. Polygenic risk scores may be used in risk prediction models and may improve early detection and targeted prevention of the disease. Breast cancer risk is influenced by rare coding variants in susceptibility genes, such as BRCA1, and many common, mostly non-coding variants. However, much of the genetic contribution to breast cancer risk remains unknown. Here we report the results of a genome-wide association study of breast cancer in 122,977 cases and 105,974 controls of European ancestry and 14,068 cases and 13,104 controls of East Asian ancestry1. We identified 65 new loci that are associated with overall breast cancer risk at P < 5 × 10−8. The majority of credible risk single-nucleotide polymorphisms in these loci fall in distal regulatory elements, and by integrating in silico data to predict target genes in breast cells at each locus, we demonstrate a strong overlap between candidate target genes and somatic driver genes in breast tumours. We also find that heritability of breast cancer due to all single-nucleotide polymorphisms in regulatory features was 2–5-fold enriched relative to the genome-wide average, with strong enrichment for particular transcription factor binding sites. These results provide further insight into genetic susceptibility to breast cancer and will improve the use of genetic risk scores for individualized screening and prevention.

BACKGROUND: V600E or V600K mutation have prolonged progression-free survival and overall survival when receiving treatment with BRAF inhibitors plus MEK inhibitors. However, long-term clinical outcomes in these patients remain undefined. To determine 5-year survival rates and clinical characteristics of the patients with durable benefit, we sought to review long-term data from randomized trials of combination therapy with BRAF and MEK inhibitors. METHODS: We analyzed pooled extended-survival data from two trials involving previously untreated patients who had received BRAF inhibitor dabrafenib (at a dose of 150 mg twice daily) plus MEK inhibitor trametinib (2 mg once daily) in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials. The median duration of follow-up was 22 months (range, 0 to 76). The primary end points in the COMBI-d and COMBI-v trials were progression-free survival and overall survival, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 563 patients were randomly assigned to receive dabrafenib plus trametinib (211 in the COMBI-d trial and 352 in the COMBI-v trial). The progression-free survival rates were 21% (95% confidence interval [CI], 17 to 24) at 4 years and 19% (95% CI, 15 to 22) at 5 years. The overall survival rates were 37% (95% CI, 33 to 42) at 4 years and 34% (95% CI, 30 to 38) at 5 years. In multivariate analysis, several baseline factors (e.g., performance status, age, sex, number of organ sites with metastasis, and lactate dehydrogenase level) were significantly associated with both progression-free survival and overall survival. A complete response occurred in 109 patients (19%) and was associated with an improved long-term outcome, with an overall survival rate of 71% (95% CI, 62 to 79) at 5 years. CONCLUSIONS: V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis; COMBI-d ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01584648; COMBI-v ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01597908.).

Background Activating mutations in serine–threonine protein kinase B-RAF (BRAF) are found in 50% of patients with advanced melanoma. Selective BRAF-inhibitor therapy improves survival, as compared with chemotherapy, but responses are often short-lived. In previous trials, MEK inhibition appeared to be promising in this population. Methods In this phase 3 open-label trial, we randomly assigned 322 patients who had metastatic melanoma with a V600E or V600K BRAF mutation to receive either trametinib, an oral selective MEK inhibitor, or chemotherapy in a 2:1 ratio. Patients received trametinib (2 mg orally) once daily or intravenous dacarbazine (1000 mg per square meter of body-surface area) or paclitaxel (175 mg per square meter) every 3 weeks. Patients in the chemotherapy group who had disease progression were permitted to cross over to receive trametinib. Progression-free survival was the primary end point, and overall survival was a secondary end point. Results Median progression-free survival was 4.8 months in the trametinib group and 1.5 months in the chemotherapy group (hazard ratio for disease progression or death in the trametinib group, 0.45; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.33 to 0.63; P&lt;0.001). At 6 months, the rate of overall survival was 81% in the trametinib group and 67% in the chemotherapy group despite crossover (hazard ratio for death, 0.54;95% CI, 0.32 to 0.92; P = 0.01). Rash, diarrhea, and peripheral edema were the most common toxic effects in the trametinib group and were managed with dose interruption and dose reduction; asymptomatic and reversible reduction in the cardiac ejection fraction and ocular toxic effects occurred infrequently. Secondary skin neoplasms were not observed. Conclusions Trametinib, as compared with chemotherapy, improved rates of progression-free and overall survival among patients who had metastatic melanoma with a BRAF V600E or V600K mutation. (Funded by GlaxoSmithKline; METRIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01245062.)

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy does not alter anal sphincter preservation or postoperative complications compared with short-course radiotherapy alone in patients with clinical stage T3 or T4 resectable rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to compare survival, local control and late toxicity in the two treatment groups. METHODS: The study randomized 312 patients to receive either preoperative irradiation (25 Gy in five fractions of 5 Gy) and surgery within 7 days or chemoradiation (50.4 Gy in 28 fractions of 1.8 Gy, bolus 5-fluorouracil and leucovorin) and surgery 4-6 weeks later. The median follow-up of living patients was 48 (range 31-69) months. RESULTS: Early radiation toxicity was higher in the chemoradiation group (18.2 versus 3.2 per cent; P < 0.001). The actuarial 4-year overall survival was 67.2 per cent in the short-course group and 66.2 per cent in the chemoradiation group (P = 0.960). Disease-free survival was 58.4 versus 55.6 per cent (P = 0.820), crude incidence of local recurrence was 9.0 versus 14.2 per cent (P = 0.170) and severe late toxicity was 10.1 versus 7.1 per cent (P = 0.360) respectively. CONCLUSION: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation did not increase survival, local control or late toxicity compared with short-course radiotherapy alone.