Correction to: IRIS study: a phase II study of the steroid sulfatase inhibitor Irosustat when added to an aromatase inhibitor in ER-positive breast cancer patients.

In the original publication of the article, a part of acknowledgement section was missed out. The omitted acknowledgement is given below: 'The study was coordinated by the Imperial Clinical Trials Unit-Cancer, Imperial College London and Sponsored by Imperial College London. The Imperial Clinical Trials Unit receives funding from the National Institute for Health (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre based at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Imperial College London. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. This study was supported by Imperial Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Cancer Research UK Imperial Centre'.

IRIS study: a phase II study of the steroid sulfatase inhibitor Irosustat when added to an aromatase inhibitor in ER-positive breast cancer patients.

PURPOSE: Irosustat is a first-generation, orally active, irreversible steroid sulfatase inhibitor. We performed a multicentre, open label phase II trial of the addition of Irosustat to a first-line aromatase inhibitor (AI) in patients with advanced BC to evaluate the safety of the combination and to test the hypothesis that the addition of Irosustat to AI may further suppress estradiol levels and result in clinical benefit. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Postmenopausal women with ER-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had derived clinical benefit from a first-line AI and who subsequently progressed were enrolled. The first-line AI was continued and Irosustat (40 mg orally daily) added. The primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR). Secondary endpoints included safety, tolerability, and pharmacodynamic end points. RESULTS: Twenty-seven women were recruited, four discontinued treatment without response assessment. Based on local reporting, the CBR was 18.5% (95% CI 6.3-38.1%) on an intent to treat basis, increasing to 21.7% (95% CI 7.4-43.7%) by per-protocol analysis. In those patients that achieved clinical benefit (n = 5), the median (interquartile range) duration was 9.4 months (8.1-11.3) months. The median progression-free survival time was 2.7 months (95% CI 2.5-4.6) in both the ITT and per-protocol analyses. The most frequently reported grade 3/4 toxicities were dry skin (28%), nausea (13%), fatigue (13%), diarrhoea (8%), headache (7%), anorexia (7%) and lethargy (7%). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of Irosustat to aromatase inhibitor therapy resulted in clinical benefit with an acceptable safety profile. The study met its pre-defined success criterion by both local and central radiological assessments.

Informed consent in randomised controlled trials: development and preliminary evaluation of a measure of Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC).

BACKGROUND: Informed consent (IC) is an ethical and legal prerequisite for trial participation, yet current approaches evaluating participant understanding for IC during recruitment lack consistency. No validated measure has been identified that evaluates participant understanding for IC based on their contributions during consent interactions. This paper outlines the development and formative evaluation of the Participatory and Informed Consent (PIC) measure for application to recorded recruitment appointments. The PIC allows the evaluation of recruiter information provision and evidence of participant understanding. METHODS: Published guidelines for IC were reviewed to identify potential items for inclusion. Seventeen purposively sampled trial recruitment appointments from three diverse trials were reviewed to identify the presence of items relevant to IC. A developmental version of the measure (DevPICv1) was drafted and applied to six further recruitment appointments from three further diverse trials to evaluate feasibility, validity, stability and inter-rater reliability. Findings guided revision of the measure (DevPICv2) which was applied to six further recruitment appointments as above. RESULTS: DevPICv1 assessed recruiter information provision (detail and clarity assessed separately) and participant talk (detail and understanding assessed separately) over 20 parameters (or 23 parameters for three-arm trials). Initial application of the measure to six diverse recruitment appointments demonstrated promising stability and inter-rater reliability but a need to simplify the measure to shorten time for completion. The revised measure (DevPICv2) combined assessment of detail and clarity of recruiter information and detail and evidence of participant understanding into two single scales for application to 22 parameters or 25 parameters for three-arm trials. Application of DevPICv2 to six further diverse recruitment appointments showed considerable improvements in feasibility (e.g. time to complete) with good levels of stability (i.e. test-retest reliability) and inter-rater reliability maintained. CONCLUSIONS: The DevPICv2 provides a measure for application to trial recruitment appointments to evaluate quality of recruiter information provision and evidence of patient understanding and participation during IC discussions. Initial evaluation shows promising feasibility, validity, reliability and ability to discriminate across a range of recruiter practice and evidence of participant understanding. More validation work is needed in new clinical trials to evaluate and refine the measure further.