ACTIV trials: Lessons learned in trial design in the setting of an emergent pandemic.

Accelerating COVID-19 Treatment Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) was initiated by the US government to rapidly develop and test vaccines and therapeutics against COVID-19 in 2020. The ACTIV Therapeutics-Clinical Working Group selected ACTIV trial teams and clinical networks to expeditiously develop and launch master protocols based on therapeutic targets and patient populations. The suite of clinical trials was designed to collectively inform therapeutic care for COVID-19 outpatient, inpatient, and intensive care populations globally. In this report, we highlight challenges, strategies, and solutions around clinical protocol development and regulatory approval to document our experience and propose plans for future similar healthcare emergencies.

Safety and efficacy of memantine and trazodone versus placebo for motor neuron disease (MND SMART): stage two interim analysis from the first cycle of a phase 3, multiarm, multistage, randomised, adaptive platform trial.

BACKGROUND: Motor neuron disease represents a group of progressive and incurable diseases that are characterised by selective loss of motor neurons, resulting in an urgent need for rapid identification of effective disease-modifying therapies. The MND SMART trial aims to test the safety and efficacy of promising interventions efficiently and definitively against a single contemporaneous placebo control group. We now report results of the stage two interim analysis for memantine and trazodone. METHODS: MND SMART is an investigator-led, phase 3, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiarm, multistage, randomised, adaptive platform trial recruiting at 20 hospital centres in the UK. Individuals older than 18 years with a confirmed diagnosis of either amyotrophic lateral sclerosis classified by the revised El Escorial criteria, primary lateral sclerosis, progressive muscular atrophy, or progressive bulbar palsy, regardless of disease duration, were eligible for screening. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to receive oral trazodone 200 mg once a day, oral memantine 20 mg once a day, or matched placebo using a computer-generated minimisation algorithm delivered via a secure web-based system. Co-primary outcome measures were clinical functioning, measured by rate of change in the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Functional Rating Scale Revised (ALSFRS-R), and survival. Comparisons were conducted in four stages, with predefined criteria for stopping at the end of stages one and two. We report interim analysis from the stage two results, which was done when 100 participants per group (excluding long survivors, defined as >8 years since diagnosis at baseline) completed a minimum of 12 months of follow-up for the candidate investigational medicinal products. The trial is registered on the European Clinical Trials Registry, 2019-000099-41, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04302870, and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Feb 27, 2020, and July 24, 2023 (database lock for interim analysis two), 554 people with a motor neuron disease were randomly allocated to memantine (183 [33%]), trazodone (185 [33%]), or placebo (186 [34%]). The primary interim analysis population comprised 530 participants, of whom 175 (33%) had been allocated memantine, 175 (33%) had been allocated trazodone, and 180 (34%) had been allocated placebo. Over 12 months of follow-up, the mean rate of change per month in ALSFRS-R was -0·650 for memantine, -0·625 for trazodone, and -0·655 for placebo (memantine versus placebo estimated mean difference 0·033, one-sided 90% CI lower level -0·085; one-sided p=0·36; trazodone vs placebo: 0·065, -0·051; one-sided p=0·24). The one-sided p values were both above the significance threshold of 10%, indicating that neither memantine nor trazodone groups met the criteria for continuation. There were 483 participants with at least one adverse event (145 [77%] on placebo, 170 [91%] on memantine, and 168 [90%] on trazodone). There were 88 participants with at least one serious adverse event (37 [20%] on memantine, 27 [14%] on trazodone, and 24 [13%] on placebo). A total of 11 serious adverse event led to treatment discontinuation. There was no survival difference between comparisons, with 49 deaths in the memantine group, 52 deaths in the trazodone group, and 48 deaths in the placebo group. INTERPRETATION: Neither memantine nor trazodone improved efficacy outcomes compared with placebo. This result is sufficiently powered to warrant no further testing of trazodone or memantine in motor neuron disease at the doses evaluated in this study. The multiarm multistage design shows important benefits in reducing the time, cost, and participant numbers to reach a definitive result. FUNDING: The Euan MacDonald Centre, MND Scotland, My Name'5 Doddie Foundation, and Baillie Gifford.

Demonstrating the data integrity of routinely collected healthcare systems data for clinical trials (DEDICaTe): A proof-of-concept study.

Introduction/aims: Healthcare systems data (also known as real-world or routinely collected health data) could transform the conduct of clinical trials. Demonstrating integrity and provenance of these data is critical for clinical trials, to enable their use where appropriate and avoid duplication using scarce trial resources. Building on previous work, this proof-of-concept study used a data intelligence tool, the "Central Metastore," to provide metadata and lineage information of nationally held data. Methods: The feasibility of NHS England's Central Metastore to capture detailed records of the origins, processes, and methods that produce four datasets was assessed. These were England's Hospital Episode Statistics (Admitted Patient Care, Outpatients, Critical Care) and the Civil Registration of Deaths (England and Wales). The process comprised: information gathering; information ingestion using the tool; and auto-generation of lineage diagrams/content to show data integrity. A guidance document to standardise this process was developed. Results/Discussion: The tool can ingest, store and display data provenance in sufficient detail to support trust and transparency in using these datasets for trials. The slowest step was information gathering from multiple sources, so consistency in record-keeping is essential.

Randomised Trial of No, Short-term, or Long-term Androgen Deprivation Therapy with Postoperative Radiotherapy After Radical Prostatectomy: Results from the Three-way Comparison of RADICALS-HD (NCT00541047).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The use and duration of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with postoperative radiotherapy (RT) have been uncertain. RADICALS-HD compared adding no ("None"), 6-months ("Short"), or 24-mo ("Long") ADT to study efficacy in the long term. METHODS: Participants with prostate cancer were indicated for postoperative RT and agreed randomisation between all durations. ADT was allocated for 0, 6, or 24 mo. The primary outcome measure (OM) was metastasis-free survival (MFS). The secondary OMs included freedom from distant metastasis, overall survival, and initiation of nonprotocol ADT. Sample size was determined by two-way comparisons. Analyses followed standard time-to-event approaches and intention-to-treat principles. KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS: Between 2007 and 2015, 492 participants were randomised one of three groups: 166 None, 164 Short, and 162 Long. The median age at randomisation was 66 yr; Gleason scores at surgery were as follows: <7 = 64 (13%), 3+4 = 229 (47%), 4+3 = 127 (26%), and 8+ = 72 (15%); T3b was 112 (23%); and T4 was 5 (1%). The median follow-up was 9.0 yr and, with MFS events reported for 89 participants (32 None, 31 Short, and 26 Long), there was no evidence of difference in MFS overall (logrank p = 0.98), and, for Long versus None, hazard ratio = 0.948 (95% confidence interval 0.54-1.68). After 10 yr, 80% None, 77% Short, and 81% Long patients were alive without metastatic disease. The three-way randomisation was not powered to conventional levels for assessment, yet provides a fair comparison. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Long-term outcomes after radical prostatectomy are usually favourable. In those indicated for postoperative RT and considered suitable for no, short-term, or long-term ADT, there was no evidence of improvement with addition of ADT. Future research should focus on patients at a higher risk of metastases in whom improvements are required more urgently.

Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised selection designs: impact of treatment selection rules on the operating characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) randomised trial designs have been proposed to evaluate multiple research questions in the confirmatory setting. In designs with several interventions, such as the 8-arm 3-stage ROSSINI-2 trial for preventing surgical wound infection, there are likely to be strict limits on the number of individuals that can be recruited or the funds available to support the protocol. These limitations may mean that not all research treatments can continue to accrue the required sample size for the definitive analysis of the primary outcome measure at the final stage. In these cases, an additional treatment selection rule can be applied at the early stages of the trial to restrict the maximum number of research arms that can progress to the subsequent stage(s). This article provides guidelines on how to implement treatment selection within the MAMS framework. It explores the impact of treatment selection rules, interim lack-of-benefit stopping boundaries and the timing of treatment selection on the operating characteristics of the MAMS selection design. METHODS: We outline the steps to design a MAMS selection trial. Extensive simulation studies are used to explore the maximum/expected sample sizes, familywise type I error rate (FWER), and overall power of the design under both binding and non-binding interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit. RESULTS: Pre-specification of a treatment selection rule reduces the maximum sample size by approximately 25% in our simulations. The familywise type I error rate of a MAMS selection design is smaller than that of the standard MAMS design with similar design specifications without the additional treatment selection rule. In designs with strict selection rules - for example, when only one research arm is selected from 7 arms - the final stage significance levels can be relaxed for the primary analyses to ensure that the overall type I error for the trial is not underspent. When conducting treatment selection from several treatment arms, it is important to select a large enough subset of research arms (that is, more than one research arm) at early stages to maintain the overall power at the pre-specified level. CONCLUSIONS: Multi-arm multi-stage selection designs gain efficiency over the standard MAMS design by reducing the overall sample size. Diligent pre-specification of the treatment selection rule, final stage significance level and interim stopping boundaries for lack-of-benefit are key to controlling the operating characteristics of a MAMS selection design. We provide guidance on these design features to ensure control of the operating characteristics.

Considerations for using potential surrogate endpoints in cancer screening trials.

The requirement of large-scale expensive cancer screening trials spanning decades creates considerable barriers to the development, commercialisation, and implementation of novel screening tests. One way to address these problems is to use surrogate endpoints for the ultimate endpoint of interest, cancer mortality, at an earlier timepoint. This Review aims to highlight the issues underlying the choice and use of surrogate endpoints for cancer screening trials, to propose criteria for when and how we might use such endpoints, and to suggest possible candidates. We present the current landscape and challenges, and discuss lessons and shortcomings from the therapeutic trial setting. It is hugely challenging to validate a surrogate endpoint, even with carefully designed clinical studies. Nevertheless, we consider whether there are candidates that might satisfy the requirements defined by research and regulatory bodies.

Adding 6 months of androgen deprivation therapy to postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of short-course versus no androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

Duration of androgen deprivation therapy with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer: a comparison of long-course versus short-course androgen deprivation therapy in the RADICALS-HD randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain. METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

The effectiveness of interventions to disseminate the results of non-commercial randomised clinical trials to healthcare professionals: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: It is unclear how to disseminate the results of randomised controlled trials effectively to health professionals and policymakers to improve treatment, care or prevention through changing policy and practice. This systematic review examined the effectiveness of different methods of dissemination of clinical research results to professional audiences. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the published and grey literature from 2000 to 2022 for studies assessing different approaches for disseminating clinical study results to professional audiences (health professionals, policymakers and guideline developers). Two reviewers assessed potentially relevant full texts for inclusion. We grouped studies by intervention type, synthesising findings using effect direction plots. Outcomes were grouped into out-takes (e.g. awareness, knowledge, understanding), outcomes (e.g. attitude changes) and impact (changes in policy/practice). The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Our search identified 13,264 unique records, of which 416 full texts were assessed for eligibility. Of 60 studies that were identified as eligible for inclusion, 20 evaluated the effectiveness of interventions to disseminate clinical research results (13 RCTs, 2 observational studies, 3 pre- and post-intervention surveys and 2 cross-sectional surveys). Studies were grouped by intervention: 7 studies that involved face-to-face meetings between the target audience and trained educators were classified as 'outreach interventions'; 5 studies that provided a summary format for systematic review findings (e.g. summary of findings tables) were grouped together. There was high certainty evidence of a small beneficial impact of outreach interventions on health and moderate certainty evidence of impact on practice (mostly prescribing). There was no evidence of impact on policy and very low certainty around benefits on outcomes and out-takes. We found no consistent benefits of summary formats for systematic review results on outcomes or out-takes (moderate quality evidence). Other interventions with less evidence are reported in the Additional Materials. CONCLUSIONS: Outreach interventions to disseminate clinical research results can lead to changes in practice and improvements in health. However, these interventions can be resource-intensive. Investment is vital to identify and implement effective and cost-effective ways to disseminate results, so that the potential benefits of trials to patients can be realised. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), CRD42019137364.

Season of radiotherapy and outcomes of head & neck cancer patients in the MACH-NC & MARCH meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: A single institution retrospective study suggested that head and neck squamous cell cancer (HNSCC) patients receiving radiotherapy (RT) during "dark" season (fall/winter) may have better outcomes than those treated during "light" season (spring/summer), possibly secondary to seasonal variations in cell cycle progression. We investigated the impact of season of RT in two large, multi-institutional, prospective datasets of randomized trials. METHODS: Individual patient data from the MACH-NC and MARCH meta-analyses were analyzed. Dark season was defined as mid-radiotherapy date during fall or winter and light the reverse, using equinoxes to separate the two periods. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS) and secondary endpoint was locoregional failure (LRF). The effect of season was estimated with a Cox model stratified by trial and adjusted on sex, tumor site, stage, and treatment. Planned sensitivity analyses were performed on patients treated around solstices, who received "complete radiotherapy", patients treated with concomitant radio-chemotherapy and on trials performed in Northern countries. RESULTS: 11320 patients from 33 trials of MARCH and 6276 patients from 29 trials of MACH-NC were included. RT during dark season had no benefit on PFS in the MARCH (hazard ratio[HR]: 1.01 [95%CI 0.97;1.05],p=0.72) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06],p=1.0. No difference in LRF was observed in the MARCH (HR:1.00 [95%CI 0.94;1.06,p=0.95) or MACH-NC dataset (HR:0.99 [95%CI 0.91; 1.07],p=0.77). Sensitivity analyses showed similar results. CONCLUSION: Season of RT had no impact on PFS or LRF in two large databases of HNSCC.

When should factorial designs be used for late-phase randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND: A 2×2 factorial design evaluates two interventions (A versus control and B versus control) by randomising to control, A-only, B-only or both A and B together. Extended factorial designs are also possible (e.g. 3×3 or 2×2×2). Factorial designs often require fewer resources and participants than alternative randomised controlled trials, but they are not widely used. We identified several issues that investigators considering this design need to address, before they use it in a late-phase setting. METHODS: We surveyed journal articles published in 2000-2022 relating to designing factorial randomised controlled trials. We identified issues to consider based on these and our personal experiences. RESULTS: We identified clinical, practical, statistical and external issues that make factorial randomised controlled trials more desirable. Clinical issues are (1) interventions can be easily co-administered; (2) risk of safety issues from co-administration above individual risks of the separate interventions is low; (3) safety or efficacy data are wanted on the combination intervention; (4) potential for interaction (e.g. effect of A differing when B administered) is low; (5) it is important to compare interventions with other interventions balanced, rather than allowing randomised interventions to affect the choice of other interventions; (6) eligibility criteria for different interventions are similar. Practical issues are (7) recruitment is not harmed by testing many interventions; (8) each intervention and associated toxicities is unlikely to reduce either adherence to the other intervention or overall follow-up; (9) blinding is easy to implement or not required. Statistical issues are (10) a suitable scale of analysis can be identified; (11) adjustment for multiplicity is not required; (12) early stopping for efficacy or lack of benefit can be done effectively. External issues are (13) adequate funding is available and (14) the trial is not intended for licensing purposes. An overarching issue (15) is that factorial design should give a lower sample size requirement than alternative designs. Across designs with varying non-adherence, retention, intervention effects and interaction effects, 2×2 factorial designs require lower sample size than a three-arm alternative when one intervention effect is reduced by no more than 24%-48% in the presence of the other intervention compared with in the absence of the other intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Factorial designs are not widely used and should be considered more often using our issues to consider. Low potential for at most small to modest interaction is key, for example, where the interventions have different mechanisms of action or target different aspects of the disease being studied.

ARCHERY: a prospective observational study of artificial intelligence-based radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck and prostate cancer - study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy. METHODS: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners.

Ovarian cancer symptoms in pre-clinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer - An exploratory analysis nested within the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

OBJECTIVE: UKCTOCS provides an opportunity to explore symptoms in preclinical invasive epithelial ovarian cancer (iEOC). We report on symptoms in women with pre-clinical (screen-detected) cancers (PC) compared to clinically diagnosed (CD) cancers. METHODS: In UKCTOCS, 202638 postmenopausal women, aged 50-74 were randomly allocated (April 17, 2001-September 29, 2005) 2:1:1 to no screening or annual screening till Dec 31,2011, using a multimodal or ultrasound strategy. Follow-up was through national registries. An outcomes committee adjudicated on OC diagnosis, histotype, stage. Eligible women were those diagnosed with iEOC at primary censorship (Dec 31, 2014). Symptom details were extracted from trial clinical-assessment forms and medical records. Descriptive statistics were used to compare symptoms in PC versus CD women with early (I/II) and advanced (III/IV/unable to stage) stage high-grade-serous (HGSC) cancer. ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. RESULTS: 1133 (286PC; 847CD) women developed iEOC. Median age (years) at diagnosis was earlier in PC compared to CD (66.8PC, 68.7CD, p = 0.0001) group. In the PC group, 48% (112/234; 90%, 660/730CD) reported symptoms when questioned. Half PC (50%, 13/26PC; 36%, 29/80CD; p = 0.213) women with symptomatic HGSC had >1symptom, with abdominal symptoms most common, both in early (62%, 16/26, PC; 53% 42/80, CD; p = 0.421) and advanced (57%, 49/86, PC; 74%, 431/580, CD; p = 0.001) stages. In symptomatic early-stage HGSC, compared to CD, PC women reported more gastrointestinal (change in bowel habits and dyspepsia) (35%, 9/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.001) and systemic (mostly lethargy/tiredness) (27%, 7/26PC; 9%, 7/80CD; p = 0.017) symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings, add to the growing evidence, that we should reconsider what constitutes alert symptoms for early tubo-ovarian cancer. We need a more nuanced complex of key symptoms which is then evaluated and refined in a prospective trial.

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials.

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work: There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration: ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001­5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001­11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Tumour stage, treatment, and survival of women with high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer in UKCTOCS: an exploratory analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In UKCTOCS, there was a decrease in the diagnosis of advanced stage tubo-ovarian cancer but no reduction in deaths in the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group. Therefore, we did exploratory analyses of patients with high-grade serous ovarian cancer to understand the reason for the discrepancy. METHODS: UKCTOCS was a 13-centre randomised controlled trial of screening postmenopausal women from the general population, aged 50-74 years, with intact ovaries. The trial management system randomly allocated (2:1:1) eligible participants (recruited from April 17, 2001, to Sept 29, 2005) in blocks of 32 using computer generated random numbers to no screening or annual screening (multimodal screening or ultrasound screening) until Dec 31, 2011. Follow-up was through national registries until June 30, 2020. An outcome review committee, masked to randomisation group, adjudicated on ovarian cancer diagnosis, histotype, stage, and cause of death. In this study, analyses were intention-to-screen comparisons of women with high-grade serous cancer at censorship (Dec 31, 2014) in multimodal screening versus no screening, using descriptive statistics for stage and treatment endpoints, and the Versatile test for survival from randomisation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, 22488978, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00058032. FINDINGS: 202 562 eligible women were recruited (50 625 multimodal screening; 50 623 ultrasound screening; 101 314 no screening). 259 (0·5%) of 50 625 participants in the multimodal screening group and 520 (0·5%) of 101 314 in the no screening group were diagnosed with high-grade serous cancer. In the multimodal screening group compared with the no screening group, fewer were diagnosed with advanced stage disease (195 [75%] of 259 vs 446 [86%] of 520; p=0·0003), more had primary surgery (158 [61%] vs 219 [42%]; p<0·0001), more had zero residual disease following debulking surgery (119 [46%] vs 157 [30%]; p<0·0001), and more received treatment including both surgery and chemotherapy (192 [74%] vs 331 [64%]; p=0·0032). There was no difference in the first-line combination chemotherapy rate (142 [55%] vs 293 [56%]; p=0·69). Median follow-up from randomisation of 779 women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal and no screening groups was 9·51 years (IQR 6·04-13·00). At censorship (June 30, 2020), survival from randomisation was longer in women with high-grade serous cancer in the multimodal screening group than in the no screening group with absolute difference in survival of 6·9% (95% CI 0·4-13·0; p=0·042) at 18 years (21% [95% CI 15·6-26·2] vs 14% [95% CI 10·5-17·4]). INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that screening can detect high-grade serous cancer earlier and lead to improved short-term treatment outcomes compared with no screening. The potential survival benefit for women with high-grade serous cancer was small, most likely due to only modest gains in early detection and treatment improvement, and tumour biology. The cumulative results of the trial suggest that surrogate endpoints for disease-specific mortality should not currently be used in screening trials for ovarian cancer. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council, Cancer Research UK, The Eve Appeal.

artbin: Extended sample size for randomized trials with binary outcomes.

We describe the command artbin, which offers various new facilities for the calculation of sample size for binary outcome variables that are not otherwise available in Stata. While artbin has been available since 2004, it has not been previously described in the Stata Journal. artbin has been recently updated to include new options for different statistical tests, methods and study designs, improved syntax, and better handling of noninferiority trials. In this article, we describe the updated version of artbin and detail the various formulas used within artbin in different settings.

Which patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer benefit from docetaxel: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Adding docetaxel to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves survival in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, but uncertainty remains about who benefits most. We therefore aimed to obtain up-to-date estimates of the overall effects of docetaxel and to assess whether these effects varied according to prespecified characteristics of the patients or their tumours. METHODS: The STOPCAP M1 collaboration conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. We searched MEDLINE (from database inception to March 31, 2022), Embase (from database inception to March 31, 2022), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from database inception to March 31, 2022), proceedings of relevant conferences (from Jan 1, 1990, to Dec 31, 2022), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from database inception to March 28, 2023) to identify eligible randomised trials that assessed docetaxel plus ADT compared with ADT alone in patients with metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. Detailed and updated individual participant data were requested directly from study investigators or through relevant repositories. The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes were progression-free survival and failure-free survival. Overall pooled effects were estimated using an adjusted, intention-to-treat, two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis, with one-stage and random-effects sensitivity analyses. Missing covariate values were imputed. Differences in effect by participant characteristics were estimated using adjusted two-stage, fixed-effect meta-analysis of within-trial interactions on the basis of progression-free survival to maximise power. Identified effect modifiers were also assessed on the basis of overall survival. To explore multiple subgroup interactions and derive subgroup-specific absolute treatment effects we used one-stage flexible parametric modelling and regression standardisation. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019140591. FINDINGS: We obtained individual participant data from 2261 patients (98% of those randomised) from three eligible trials (GETUG-AFU15, CHAARTED, and STAMPEDE trials), with a median follow-up of 72 months (IQR 55-85). Individual participant data were not obtained from two additional small trials. Based on all included trials and patients, there were clear benefits of docetaxel on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·79, 95% CI 0·70 to 0·88; p<0·0001), progression-free survival (0·70, 0·63 to 0·77; p<0·0001), and failure-free survival (0·64, 0·58 to 0·71; p<0·0001), representing 5-year absolute improvements of around 9-11%. The overall risk of bias was assessed to be low, and there was no strong evidence of differences in effect between trials for all three main outcomes. The relative effect of docetaxel on progression-free survival appeared to be greater with increasing clinical T stage (pinteraction=0·0019), higher volume of metastases (pinteraction=0·020), and, to a lesser extent, synchronous diagnosis of metastatic disease (pinteraction=0·077). Taking into account the other interactions, the effect of docetaxel was independently modified by volume and clinical T stage, but not timing. There was no strong evidence that docetaxel improved absolute effects at 5 years for patients with low-volume, metachronous disease (-1%, 95% CI -15 to 12, for progression-free survival; 0%, -10 to 12, for overall survival). The largest absolute improvement at 5 years was observed for those with high-volume, clinical T stage 4 disease (27%, 95% CI 17 to 37, for progression-free survival; 35%, 24 to 47, for overall survival). INTERPRETATION: The addition of docetaxel to hormone therapy is best suited to patients with poorer prognosis for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer based on a high volume of disease and potentially the bulkiness of the primary tumour. There is no evidence of meaningful benefit for patients with metachronous, low-volume disease who should therefore be managed differently. These results will better characterise patients most and, importantly, least likely to gain benefit from docetaxel, potentially changing international practice, guiding clinical decision making, better informing treatment policy, and improving patient outcomes. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council and Prostate Cancer UK.

A comparison of different population-level summary measures for randomised trials with time-to-event outcomes, with a focus on non-inferiority trials.

BACKGROUND: The population-level summary measure is a key component of the estimand for clinical trials with time-to-event outcomes. This is particularly the case for non-inferiority trials, because different summary measures imply different null hypotheses. Most trials are designed using the hazard ratio as summary measure, but recent studies suggested that the difference in restricted mean survival time might be more powerful, at least in certain situations. In a recent letter, we conjectured that differences between summary measures can be explained using the concept of the non-inferiority frontier and that for a fair simulation comparison of summary measures, the same analysis methods, making the same assumptions, should be used to estimate different summary measures. The aim of this article is to make such a comparison between three commonly used summary measures: hazard ratio, difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival at a fixed time point. In addition, we aim to investigate the impact of using an analysis method that assumes proportional hazards on the operating characteristics of a trial designed with any of the three summary measures. METHODS: We conduct a simulation study in the proportional hazards setting. We estimate difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival non-parametrically, without assuming proportional hazards. We also estimate all three measures parametrically, using flexible survival regression, under the proportional hazards assumption. RESULTS: Comparing the hazard ratio assuming proportional hazards with the other summary measures not assuming proportional hazards, relative performance varies substantially depending on the specific scenario. Fixing the summary measure, assuming proportional hazards always leads to substantial power gains compared to using non-parametric methods. Fixing the modelling approach to flexible parametric regression assuming proportional hazards, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often the most powerful summary measure among those considered. CONCLUSION: When the hazards are likely to be approximately proportional, reflecting this in the analysis can lead to large gains in power for difference in restricted mean survival time and difference in survival. The choice of summary measure for a non-inferiority trial with time-to-event outcomes should be made on clinical grounds; when any of the three summary measures discussed here is equally justifiable, difference in restricted mean survival time is most often associated with the most powerful test, on the condition that it is estimated under proportional hazards.