The Prehabilitation Radiotherapy Exercise, smoking Habit cessation and Balanced diet Study (PREHABS) protocol to explore the feasibility of embedding behavioural modifications into the clinical pathway for patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for lung cancer.

Patients with curable non-surgical lung cancer are often current smokers, have co-existing medical comorbidities and are treated with curative radiotherapy. To maximise the benefits of modern radiotherapy, there is an urgent need to optimise the patient's health to improve survival and quality of life. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Yorkshire Cancer Research-funded Prehabilitation Radiotherapy Exercise, smoking Habit cessation and Balanced diet Study (PREHABS) (L426) is a single-centre prospective feasibility study to assess embedding behavioural changes into the radical radiotherapy pathway of patients with lung cancer. Feasibility will be assessed by measuring acceptability, demand and implementation. The duration of the study is 24 months. PREHABS has two workstreams: the intervention study and the theory of change (ToC) study.Intervention study: PREHABS will commence at the R-IDEAL phase 2 trial (exploratory) based on existing evidence and includes support for smoking cessation, increasing activity and dietary well-being. Patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for lung cancer will be recruited from the oncology department at Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (LTHT). ToC study: to maximise the acceptability and adherence to the PREHABS, we will use a ToC approach to qualitatively explore the key barriers and enablers of implementing a tailored programme of 'prehabilitation'. The PREHABS ToC study participants will be recruited from patients with lung cancer undergoing radical radiotherapy and staff from the LTHT oncology department. ANALYSIS: The primary endpoint analysis will report the number of participants and adherence to the study interventions. Secondary endpoints include continued engagement with study interventions post-treatment. The analysis will focus on descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis of the qualitative data from the ToC study will identify consensus on intervention optimisation and delivery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: On 12 May 2021, the Cambridge East Ethics Committee granted ethical approval (21/EE/0048). The study is registered in the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) portfolio. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NIHR portfolio 48420.

Temporary treatment cessation versus continuation of first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor in patients with advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma (STAR): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Temporary drug treatment cessation might alleviate toxicity without substantially compromising efficacy in patients with cancer. We aimed to determine if a tyrosine kinase inhibitor drug-free interval strategy was non-inferior to a conventional continuation strategy for first-line treatment of advanced clear cell renal cell carcinoma. METHODS: This open-label, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2/3 trial was done at 60 hospital sites in the UK. Eligible patients (aged ≥18 years) had histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinoma, inoperable loco-regional or metastatic disease, no previous systemic therapy for advanced disease, uni-dimensionally assessed Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours-defined measurable disease, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) at baseline to a conventional continuation strategy or drug-free interval strategy using a central computer-generated minimisation programme incorporating a random element. Stratification factors were Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center prognostic group risk factor, sex, trial site, age, disease status, tyrosine kinase inhibitor, and previous nephrectomy. All patients received standard dosing schedules of oral sunitinib (50 mg per day) or oral pazopanib (800 mg per day) for 24 weeks before moving into their randomly allocated group. Patients allocated to the drug-free interval strategy group then had a treatment break until disease progression, when treatment was re-instated. Patients in the conventional continuation strategy group continued treatment. Patients, treating clinicians, and the study team were aware of treatment allocation. The co-primary endpoints were overall survival and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); non-inferiority was shown if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI for the overall survival hazard ratio (HR) was 0·812 or higher and if the lower limit of the two-sided 95% CI of the marginal difference in mean QALYs was -0·156 or higher. The co-primary endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, which included all randomly assigned patients, and the per-protocol population, which excluded patients in the ITT population with major protocol violations and who did not begin their randomisation allocation as per the protocol. Non-inferiority was to be concluded if it was met for both endpoints in both analysis populations. Safety was assessed in all participants who received a tyrosine kinase inhibitor. The trial was registered with ISRCTN, 06473203, and EudraCT, 2011-001098-16. FINDINGS: Between Jan 13, 2012, and Sept 12, 2017, 2197 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 920 were randomly assigned to the conventional continuation strategy (n=461) or the drug-free interval strategy (n=459; 668 [73%] male and 251 [27%] female; 885 [96%] White and 23 [3%] non-White). The median follow-up time was 58 months (IQR 46-73 months) in the ITT population and 58 months (46-72) in the per-protocol population. 488 patients continued on the trial after week 24. For overall survival, non-inferiority was demonstrated in the ITT population only (adjusted HR 0·97 [95% CI 0·83 to 1·12] in the ITT population; 0·94 [0·80 to 1·09] in the per-protocol population). Non-inferiority was demonstrated for QALYs in the ITT population (n=919) and per-protocol (n=871) population (marginal effect difference 0·06 [95% CI -0·11 to 0·23] for the ITT population; 0·04 [-0·14 to 0·21] for the per-protocol population). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were hypertension (124 [26%] of 485 patients in the conventional continuation strategy group vs 127 [29%] of 431 patients in the drug-free interval strategy group); hepatotoxicity (55 [11%] vs 48 [11%]); and fatigue (39 [8%] vs 63 [15%]). 192 (21%) of 920 participants had a serious adverse reaction. 12 treatment-related deaths were reported (three patients in the conventional continuation strategy group; nine patients in the drug-free interval strategy group) due to vascular (n=3), cardiac (n=3), hepatobiliary (n=3), gastrointestinal (n=1), or nervous system (n=1) disorders, and from infections and infestations (n=1). INTERPRETATION: Overall, non-inferiority between groups could not be concluded. However, there seemed to be no clinically meaningful reduction in life expectancy between the drug-free interval strategy and conventional continuation strategy groups and treatment breaks might be a feasible and cost-effective option with lifestyle benefits for patients during tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

The DANTE trial protocol: a randomised phase III trial to evaluate the Duration of ANti-PD-1 monoclonal antibody Treatment in patients with metastatic mElanoma.

BACKGROUND: Immunotherapy is revolutionising the treatment of patients diagnosed with melanoma and other cancers. The first immune checkpoint inhibitor, ipilimumab (targeting cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated antigen 4 (CTLA-4)), showed a survival advantage over standard chemotherapy. Subsequently the anti-programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) antibodies, nivolumab and pembrolizumab were shown to be more effective than ipilimumab. Ipilimumab combined with nivolumab gives an incremental gain in overall survival compared with nivolumab alone but increases the risk of severe, potentially life-threatening toxicities. In contrast to ipilimumab monotherapy, anti-PD-1 antibodies are licensed to be continued until disease progression. Follow-up of patients recruited to the first trials evaluating 2 years of pembrolizumab showed that three-quarters of responding patients continue responding after stopping treatment. Suggestive of early response, we hypothesised that continuing anti-PD-1 treatment beyond 1 year in progression-free patients may be unnecessary and so designed the DANTE trial. METHODS: DANTE is a multicentre, randomised, phase III, non-inferiority trial to evaluate the duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in patients with metastatic (unresectable stage III and stage IV) melanoma. It uses a two-stage recruitment strategy, registering patients before they complete 1 year of first-line anti-PD-1 +/- CTLA-4 therapy and randomising eligible patients who have received 12 months of treatment and are progression-free at 1 year. At randomisation, 1208 patients are assigned (1:1) to either 1) continue anti-PD-1 treatment until disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity/ for at least 2 years in the absence of disease progression/ unacceptable toxicity or 2) to stop treatment. Randomisation stratifies for baseline prognostic factors. The primary outcome is progression-free survival at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months and then, 6-monthly for up to 4-years. Secondary outcomes collected at all timepoints include overall survival, response-rate and duration and safety, with quality of life and cost-effectiveness outcomes collected 3-monthly for up to 18-months. Sub-studies include a qualitative analysis of patient acceptance of randomisation and sample collection to inform future translational studies into response/ toxicity biomarkers. DISCUSSION: DANTE is a unique prospective trial investigating the optimal duration of anti-PD-1 therapy in metastatic melanoma patients. Outcomes will inform future use of these high burden drugs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN15837212 , 31 July 2018.

SABRTooth: a randomised controlled feasibility study of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) with surgery in patients with peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer considered to be at higher risk of complications from surgical resection.

OBJECTIVES: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible. DESIGN AND METHODS: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates. RESULTS: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach.

New models of care: a liaison psychiatry service for medically unexplained symptoms and frequent attenders in primary care.

Aims and method This paper describes the process of setting up and the early results from a new liaison psychiatry service in primary care for people identified as frequent general practice attenders with long-term conditions or medically unexplained symptoms. Using a rapid evidence synthesis, we identified existing service models, mechanisms to identify and refer patients, and outcomes for the service. Considering this evidence, with local contingencies we defined options and resources. We agreed a model to set up a service in three diverse general practices. An evaluation explored the feasibility of the service and of collecting data for clinical, service and economic outcomes. Results High levels of patient and staff satisfaction, and reductions in the utilisation of primary and secondary healthcare, with associated cost savings are reported. Clinical implications A multidisciplinary liaison psychiatry service integrated in primary care is feasible and may be evaluated using routinely collected data.

Can service integration work for universal health coverage? Evidence from around the globe.

Universal health coverage (UHC) is at the heart of the new 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Health service integration is seen by World Health Organization as an essential requirement to achieve UHC. However, to date the debate on service integration has focused on perceived benefits rather than empirical impact. We conducted a global review in a systematic manner searching for empirical outcomes of service integration experiments in UHC countries and those on the path to UHC. Sixty-seven articles and reports were found. We grouped results into a unique integration typology with six categories - medical staff from different disciplines; patients and medical staff; care package for one medical condition; care package for two or more medical conditions; specialist stand-alone services with GP services; community locations. We showed that it is possible to integrate services in different human development contexts delivering positive outcomes for patients and clinicians without incurring additional costs. However, the improved outcomes shown were incremental rather than radical and suggest that integration is likely to enhance already well established systems rather than fundamentally changing the outcomes of care.

The use of cognitive interviewing methodology in the design and testing of a screening tool for supportive and palliative care needs.

GOALS OF WORK: The authors describe the use of cognitive interviewing methodology in the development of a new supportive and palliative care screening measure to identify the specialist supportive and palliative care needs of patients with an advanced illness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A draft screening measure was developed by literature reviewing and consultation with patients, carers and health and social care professionals. Using this draft, cognitive interviews were conducted with six professionals and one consumer using the 'thinking aloud technique' to assess the perception, usefulness and interpretation of each question on the measure. The focus of these interviews was to identify unclear words or phrases and to explore how the questions worked in eliciting a response. A content analysis of the interviews was used to identify problems with the text, phrasing and format of the questions and accompanying responses. MAIN RESULTS: The authors found the technique to be useful in identifying jargon or confusing questions. A number of perspectives were taken into account by speaking to health and social care professionals in primary care and secondary care who would be offering the measure to future patients. CONCLUSIONS: The most sensitive questions were highlighted, and this enabled the researchers to consider how these should be asked and responded to in subsequent versions of the measure. The measure was re-drafted in light of these comments.

Fluticasone versus placebo for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a relatively new inhaled corticosteroid for the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVES: To assess efficacy and safety outcomes in studies that compared FP to placebo for treatment of chronic asthma. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Specialised Register (January 2008), reference lists of articles, contacted trialists and searched abstracts of major respiratory society meetings (1997-2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in children and adults comparing FP to placebo in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and risk of bias. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors extracted data. Quantitative analyses were undertaken using Review Manager software. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six studies met the inclusion criteria, recruiting 16,160 participants. In non-oral steroid treated asthmatics with mild and moderate disease FP resulted in improvements from baseline compared with placebo across all dose ranges (100 to 1000 mcg/d) in FEV1 (between 0.1 to 0.43 litres); morning PEF (between 23 and 46 L/min); symptom scores (based on a standardised scale, between 0.44 and 0.7); reduction in rescue beta-2 agonist use (between 1 and 1.4 puffs/day). High dose FP increased the number of patients who could withdraw from prednisolone: FP 1000-1500 mcg/day Peto Odds Ratio 14.07 (95% CI 7.17 to 27.57). FP at all doses led to a greater likelihood of sore throat, hoarseness and oral Candidiasis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Doses of FP in the range 100-1000 mcg/day are effective. In most patients with mild-moderate asthma improvements with low dose FP are only a little less than those associated with high doses when compared with placebo. High dose FP appears to have worthwhile oral-corticosteroid reducing properties. FP use is accompanied by an increased likelihood of oropharyngeal side effects.

Fluticasone at different doses for chronic asthma in adults and children.

BACKGROUND: Inhaled fluticasone propionate (FP) is a high-potency inhaled corticosteroid used in the treatment of asthma. OBJECTIVES: 1. To assess the efficacy and safety outcomes of inhaled fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma.2. To test for the presence of a dose-response effect. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Trials Register (January 2008). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials in children and adults comparing fluticasone at different nominal daily doses in the treatment of chronic asthma. Two reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and methodological quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data. These were checked and verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative analyses where undertaken using Review Manager. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-one published and unpublished trials (representing 55 group comparisons, 10,797 participants) met the inclusion criteria. In asthmatics with mild to moderate disease who were not on oral steroids, FP did not exhibit a dose-response effect in the lower dose comparisons in FEV1 (50mcg, 100mcg, 200mcg and 4-500mcg daily). There were no statisitically significant differences between 4-500mcg and 800-1000mcg, and between 50-100 and 800-1000mcg of FP. When 200mcg was compared with 800-1000mcg daily FEV1 favoured the four/five fold increase. For PEF, a dose response was present with FP when low and moderate, and low and high doses of FP were compared. There was no evidence of a dose-response effect on symptoms or rescue beta-2 agonist use. The likelihood of hoarseness and oral candidiasis was significantly greater for the higher doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). People with oral steroid-dependent asthma treated with FP (2000 microg/day) were significantly more likely to reduce oral prednisolone than those on 1000 to 1500 microg/day (Peto odds Ratio 2.8, 95% CI 1.3 to 6.3). The highest dose also allowed a significant reduction in daily oral prednisolone dose compared to 1000 to 1500 microg/day (WMD 2.0 mg/day, 95% CI 0.1 to 4.0 mg/day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We have not found evidence of a pronounced dose response in FEV1 with increasing doses of fluticasone. The number of studies contributing to our primary outcomes was low. At dose ratios of 1:2, there are statistically significant differences in favour of the higher dose in morning peak flow across the low dose range. The clinical impact of these differences is open to interpretation. Patients with moderate disease achieve similar levels of asthma control on medium doses of fluticasone (400 to 500 microg/day) as they do on high doses (800 to 1000 microg/day). More work in severe asthma would help to confirm that doses of FP above 500 microg/day confer greater benefit in this subgroup than doses of around 200 microg/day. In oral corticosteroid-dependent asthmatics, reductions in prednisolone requirement may be gained with FP 2000 microg/day.

Access and referral to specialist palliative care: patients' and professionals' experiences.

The aim of this study was to explore the reasons why patients and families are referred to specialist palliative care. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with patients and professionals from primary care and specialist palliative care services in the north of England. A content analysis of the transcripts was undertaken, key issues were identified and common themes grouped. Twelve professionals working in specialist palliative care, three GPs, six community nurses and thirteen patients were interviewed (n = 34). Five key themes are reported: reasons why patients are referred to specialist palliative care; reasons why patients are not referred to specialist palliative care; timeliness of referrals; continuity of care; and use of referral criteria. It was found that the professionals in primary care would like more training and education about how to refer patients to specialist palliative care and how to deal with issues of death and dying. The patients were generally satisfied with the service but wanted to be able to be supported at home in their final days. Further training and education may improve the knowledge of professionals who refer patients to specialist palliative care. There are currently no standardized criteria in the UK to determine when a referral should be triggered. The development of a set of standardized referral criteria may be useful in aiding a referral decision.