Patients' views and experiences on the supported self-management/patient-initiated follow up pathway for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To explore patients' expectations and experience of Supportive Self-Management (SSM)/ Patient Initiated Follow Up (PIFU) following breast cancer treatments over a 12-month period. METHODS: In total, 32/110 (29%) patient participants in the PRAGMATIC (Patients' experiences of a suppoRted self-manAGeMent pAThway In breast Cancer) study were interviewed at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. Interviews in this sub-study used a mix-methods approach to explore understanding of the pathway, confidence in self-management, triggers to seek help and/or re-engage with the clinical breast team and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Responses to pre-assigned categories were summarised as counts/ percentages and collated in tabular or graphic format. Free responses were recorded verbatim and reviewed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Participants regarded the SSM/PIFU pathway as a way to save time and money for them and the National Health Service (NHS) (14/32; 44%) and as a means of assuming responsibility for their own follow-up (18/32; 56%). Most maintained (very/somewhat) confidence in managing their BC follow-up care (baseline 31/32, 97%; 12 months 29/31, 93%). During the year, 19% (5/26) stopped endocrine therapy altogether because of side effects. Qualitative analysis revealed general satisfaction with SSM/PIFU and described the breast care nurses as reassuring and empathic. However, there was a lingering anxiety about identifying signs and symptoms correctly, particularly for those with screen-detected cancers. There was also uncertainty about who to contact for psychological support. The COVID-19 pandemic discouraged some participants from contacting the helpline as they did not want to overburden the NHS. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that during the first year on the SSM/PIFU pathway, most patients felt confident managing their own care. Clinical teams should benefit from understanding patients' expectations and experiences and potentially modify the service for men with BC and/or those with screen-detected breast cancers.

A digital pathway for genetic testing in UK NHS patients with cancer: BRCA-DIRECT randomised study internal pilot.

BACKGROUND: Germline genetic testing affords multiple opportunities for women with breast cancer, however, current UK NHS models for delivery of germline genetic testing are clinician-intensive and only a minority of breast cancer cases access testing. METHODS: We designed a rapid, digital pathway, supported by a genetics specialist hotline, for delivery of germline testing of BRCA1/BRCA2/PALB2 (BRCA-testing), integrated into routine UK NHS breast cancer care. We piloted the pathway, as part of the larger BRCA-DIRECT study, in 130 unselected patients with breast cancer and gathered preliminary data from a randomised comparison of delivery of pretest information digitally (fully digital pathway) or via telephone consultation with a genetics professional (partially digital pathway). RESULTS: Uptake of genetic testing was 98.4%, with good satisfaction reported for both the fully and partially digital pathways. Similar outcomes were observed in both arms regarding patient knowledge score and anxiety, with <5% of patients contacting the genetics specialist hotline. All progression criteria established for continuation of the study were met. CONCLUSION: Pilot data indicate preliminary demonstration of feasibility and acceptability of a fully digital pathway for BRCA-testing and support proceeding to a full powered study for evaluation of non-inferiority of the fully digital pathway, detailed quantitative assessment of outcomes and operational economic analyses. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN87845055.

Talking about Risk, UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING): development and evaluation of an educational programme for healthcare professionals about BRCA1 & BRCA2 testing.

BACKGROUND: Mainstreaming of germline testing demands that all healthcare professionals have good communication skills, but few have genetic testing and counselling experience. We developed and evaluated educational workshops-Talking about Risk & UncertaintieS of Testing IN Genetics (TRUSTING). Contents included: presentations and exercises, an interview with a geneticist about BRCA testing, screening and prevention implications, filmed interactions between surgeons, a genetic counsellor and geneticists with a fictitious family (proband had a BRCA2 pathogenic variant with triple-negative breast cancer, her older sister-BRCA2 heterozygous, and cousin-negative for BRCA2 variant). METHODS: Twenty-one surgeons, 5 oncologists, 18 nurses and 9 genetic counsellors participated. Knowledge (18 item MCQ), communication skills (responses to 6 questions from proband and relatives) and self-confidence (discussing 9 genetic testing issues) were assessed pre- and post workshop. RESULTS: Knowledge scores improved significantly post workshop (mean change = 7.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) 6.37-7.74; P < 0.001), as did communication (mean change = 5.38; 95% CI 4.37-6.38; P < 0.001) and self-confidence (P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Healthcare professionals' knowledge and self-confidence when discussing the risks and uncertainties in genetics are often poor. TRUSTING workshops significantly enhanced attendees' navigation of communication difficulties encountered and will be rolled out more widely.

The management of sexual dysfunction resulting from radiotherapy and androgen deprivation therapy to treat prostate cancer: A comparison of uro-oncology practice according to disease stage.

OBJECTIVES: To establish current uro-oncology practice in the management of sexual dysfunction (SD) following radiotherapy (RT) and/or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) to treat prostate cancer. To identify differences in approach to the management of SD according to disease stage. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A 14-question mixed methods survey was designed to assess the current UK practice. Closed- and open-ended questions were used to quantify results while allowing participants to expand on answers. The survey was distributed to members of the British Uro-Oncology Group at the 2019 annual meeting. RESULTS: Surveys were completed by 63 uro-oncologists attending the annual meeting of the British Uro-Oncology Group (response rate 66%). The major issue highlighted was a difference in approach to managing SD according to disease stage. More than half of the participants (56%) said 'advanced stage of disease' was a barrier to discussing SD. Clinicians were less likely to discuss SD, take baseline assessments, refer to a specialist clinic or offer rehabilitation when dealing with patients with advanced disease. Only a minority said that the management of SD was primarily their responsibility (11%). Nearly all clinicians (92%) had access to SD clinics; however, the majority of clinicians did not routinely refer patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that men with advanced prostate cancer need better support in managing SD. Patients receiving long-term ADT are less likely to be offered any kind of help or intervention. Specific guidance on managing SD in this cohort may result in improvements in sexual function, emotional well-being, quality of life, mental health and confidence.

Using patient perspectives to inform communication training materials for health care professionals discussing BRCA mutation testing.

PURPOSE: As demand for genetic testing grows and a wide range of health care professionals (HCPs) are potentially involved in discussions about testing and delivering results, we developed an educational package to help HCPs with these conversations. METHODS: To inform the content of training materials, we conducted interviews with 11 women four of whom had BRCA1 and seven with BRCA2 mutations. Five women had or were currently receiving breast cancer treatment. Ages ranged from 38 to 77 years. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the Framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: We identified 18 themes and 12 subthemes across the interviews, encompassed by six overarching themes: risk, decision-making, information and understanding, communication and improvement, accessing the system: process and frustration, emotional and social drivers. CONCLUSIONS: The findings informed the didactic components of an educational communication workshop and a summary document for attendees. Qualitative interviews provide an important way of incorporating the patient perspective into communication training materials for HCPs by highlighting key issues that matter most to the patient.

A systematic review of communication interventions to help healthcare professionals discuss genetic testing for breast cancer.

PURPOSE: This systematic review examined educational training interventions for healthcare professionals (HCPs) discussing genetic testing and risk for hereditary breast cancer. There was a particular focus on the presence, and content, of communication elements within these packages. METHODS: Searches were run via CINAHL, EMBASE, PUBMED, and PsychInfo in February 2019 to identify training interventions available to HCPs with reference to communication skills. Studies were assessed for quality, with relevant intervention and outcome data extracted and synthesized. This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42019124010). RESULTS: Of 3,988 items, seven papers, two of which were linked, were eligible for inclusion. There was a mix of randomized and single arm studies with web-based and face-to-face interventions. Content included an overview of genetics, hereditary and familial background, and recommended practice techniques. Outcomes focused on communication, self-efficacy, knowledge, and satisfaction. Interventions were designed for genetic counselors, physicians, primary care physicians (PCPs), medical students, and nurses. None of the papers featured oncologists or surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed an overall lack of publications which evaluated interventions to assist HCPs discussing hereditary breast cancer risk and testing. Studies failed to operationalize which 'communication skills' they included, nor did they consistently report randomization, outcome measures, or analysis. Discussing the need for, and management of, genetic testing for inherited cancer risk with individuals and their families can be challenging. As genetic testing in breast cancer becomes more common, the provision of specific communication-based training programs, with reference to genetic testing, risk assessments, and counseling skills is warranted.

Understanding of prognosis in non-metastatic prostate cancer: a randomised comparative study of clinician estimates measured against the PREDICT prostate prognostic model.

PREDICT Prostate is an individualised prognostic model that provides long-term survival estimates for men diagnosed with non-metastatic prostate cancer ( www.prostate.predict.nhs.uk ). In this study clinician estimates of survival were compared against model predictions and its potential value as a clinical tool was assessed. Prostate cancer (PCa) specialists were invited to participate in the study. 190 clinicians (63% urologists, 17% oncologists, 20% other) were randomised into two groups and shown 12 clinical vignettes through an online portal. Each group viewed opposing vignettes with clinical information alone, or alongside PREDICT Prostate estimates. 15-year clinician survival estimates were compared against model predictions and reported treatment recommendations with and without seeing PREDICT estimates were compared. 155 respondents (81.6%) reported counselling new PCa patients at least weekly. Clinician estimates of PCa-specific mortality exceeded PREDICT estimates in 10/12 vignettes. Their estimates for treatment survival benefit at 15 years were over-optimistic in every vignette, with mean clinician estimates more than 5-fold higher than PREDICT Prostate estimates. Concomitantly seeing PREDICT Prostate estimates led to significantly lower reported likelihoods of recommending radical treatment in 7/12 (58%) vignettes, particularly in older patients. These data suggest clinicians overestimate cancer-related mortality and radical treatment benefit. Using an individualised prognostic tool may help reduce overtreatment.

Development and validation of the caregiver roles and responsibilities scale in cancer caregivers.

PURPOSE: The caregiver roles and responsibilities scale (CRRS) was developed to facilitate formal assessment of broad life impacts for informal (i.e. unpaid) caregivers to people with cancer. Here we report the development and initial validation. METHODS: The CRRS was developed from the thematic analysis of two interview studies with cancer patients (stage III-IV breast, gynaecological, lung or melanoma) and caregivers. In the evaluation studies, participants completed the CRRS alongside the Caregiver Quality of Life-Cancer, the main criterion measure for concurrent validity, and the WHOQOL-BREF for additional convergent validity data. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, 7-days and 2-months. Demographic data and patient characteristics were collected at baseline. RESULTS: Two-hundred and forty-five caregivers to people with stage I-IV breast, colorectal, gynaecological, head and neck, lung or renal cancer or melanoma completed the CRRS at least once. The final 41 core items selected comprised five subscales: Support and Impact, Lifestyle, Emotional Health and Wellbeing, Self-care and Financial Wellbeing as well as three standalone items. Missing data rate was low (0.6%); there were no ceiling or floor effects for total scores. Cronbach's alpha was 0.92 for the CRRS-41; 0.75-0.87 for the subscales. CRRS showed good test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.91), sensitivity to change and the predicted pattern of correlation with validation measures r = 0.75-0.89. The standalone 7-item jobs and careers subscale requires further validation. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation shows the CRRS has good validity and reliability and is a promising tool for the assessment of the effects of cancer and cancer treatment on the lives and wellbeing of informal caregivers.

Patients' and partners' views of care and treatment provided for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Documentations of the experiences of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their partners are sparse. Views of care and treatment received for metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) are presented here. METHODS: Structured interviews conducted within 14 days of a systemic therapy for mCRPC starting and 3 months later explored the following: treatment decisions, information provision, perceived benefits and harms of treatment, and effects of these on patients' and partners' lives. RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients and 33 partners recruited from UK cancer centres participated. The majority of patients (46%) reported pain was their worst symptom and many wanted to discuss its management (baseline-50%; 3 months-33%). Patients and partners believed treatment would delay progression (>75%), improve wellbeing (33%), alleviate pain (≈12%) and extend life (15% patients, 36% partners). At 3 months, most men (42%) said fatigue was the worst treatment-related side effect (SE), 27% experienced unexpected SEs and 54% needed help with SEs. Most patients received SE information (85% written; 75% verbally); many additionally searched the Internet (33% patients; 55% partners). Only 54% of patients said nurse support was accessible. CONCLUSION: Pain and other symptom management are not optimal. Increased specialist nurse provision and earlier palliative care links are needed. Dedicated clinics may be justified.

Enhancing decision-making about adjuvant chemotherapy in early breast cancer following EndoPredict testing.

OBJECTIVE: Chemotherapy side-effects can be substantial. There is increasing recognition that some oestrogen receptor positive (ER +ve), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2 -ve) patients with breast cancer derive no benefit from chemotherapy and experience only iatrogenic harm. Gene expression profiling tests help refine recurrence risk and likely chemotherapy benefit. EndoPredict® is one such test, which classifies risks of distant recurrence as low or high in patients treated with surgery and adjuvant endocrine therapy alone. We compared treatment decisions pre-test and post-test results, patients' anxiety, decisional conflict, and oncologists' confidence about the decisions made. METHODS: Fourteen oncologists in 7 UK hospitals saw 149 pts judged to have equivocal indications for chemotherapy. Provisional treatment decisions were recorded then reconsidered when EPClin results were available. Pre-test and post-test results, patients completed State/Trait Anxiety Inventories (STAI), and the decisional conflict scale. Oncologists also recorded basic clinical details, their agreement with, and confidence about treatment decisions. RESULTS: Sixty-seven percent patients initially prescribed endocrine alone with high risk result upgraded to endocrine+chemotherapy (E + C); 83% prescribed E + C and had low risk scores, downgraded to E. None of 46 patients initially favouring E alone, who were low risk, changed decisions. Oncologists' confidence about decisions was significantly increased following the results (P = 0.002). Patients with downgraded treatment decisions had significantly lower anxiety scores (P = 0.045); those upgraded had increased scores (P = 0.001). Overall decisional conflict and uncertainty fell significantly post-test (P < 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: EndoPredict scores increased oncologists' and patients' decision-making confidence, generally improving the matching of risk with therapy decisions.

Development and validation of the patient roles and responsibilities scale in cancer patients.

PURPOSE: The Patient Roles and Responsibilities Scale (PRRS) was developed to enable a broader evaluation of the impact of cancer and cancer treatment, measuring 'real world' roles and responsibilities such as caring for others and financial and employment responsibilities. Here, we report the development and initial validation. METHODS: The 29-item PRRS was developed from the thematic analysis of two interview studies with cancer patients and caregivers. In the evaluation study, participants completed the PRRS alongside the Social Difficulties Inventory (SDI), the main criterion measure for concurrent validity, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy - General and WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) for additional convergent validity data. Questionnaires were completed at baseline, 7-days (PRRS only) and 2 months. Demographic data and patient characteristics were collected at baseline. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-five patients with stage III/IV breast, lung or gynaecological cancer or melanoma completed the PRRS at least once. Five items performed poorly and were removed from the scale. The final 16 core items selected comprised 3 dimensions: family well-being, responsibilities and social life, and financial well-being, identified in principal component analysis, accounting for 61.5% of total variance. Missing data (0.6%) and floor/ceiling effects were low (0%/1.5%). Cronbach's alpha was 0.9 for the PRRS-16; 0.79-0.87 for the subscales. PRRS showed good test-retest reliability (ICC-0.86), sensitivity to change and the predicted pattern of correlation with validation measures r = |0.65-0.77|. The standalone 7-item jobs and careers subscale requires further validation. CONCLUSIONS: Initial evaluation shows that the PRRS is psychometrically robust with potential to inform the evaluation of new treatments in clinical trials and real-world studies.

The effect of ovarian cancer screening on sexual activity and functioning: results from the UK collaborative trial of ovarian cancer screening RCT.

BACKGROUND: To examine the impact of multimodal (MMS) and ultrasound (USS) screening on the sexual activity and functioning of 22 966 women in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) RCT. METHODS: Fallowfield's Sexual Activity Questionnaire (FSAQ) was completed prior to randomisation, then annually in a random sample (RS) of women from MMS, USS and control groups. Any women in the study who required repeat screening due to unsatisfactory results formed an Events Sample (ES); they completed questionnaires following an event and annually thereafter. RESULTS: Over time in the RS (n=1339) there was no difference between the MMS and USS groups in sexual activity compared with controls. In the ES there were significant differences between the USS group (n=10 156) and the MMS group (n=12 810). The USS group had lower pleasure scores (mean difference=-0.14, P=0.046). For both groups women who had ⩾2 repeat screens, showed a decrease in mean pleasure scores compared with their annual scores (mean difference=-0.16, P=0.005). Similarly mean pleasure scores decreased following more intensive screens compared with annual screening (mean difference=-0.09, P=0.046). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian cancer screening did not affect sexual activity and functioning unless a woman had abnormal results and underwent repeated or higher level screening.

Patient-reported outcome measures for cancer caregivers: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Informal caregivers provide invaluable help and support to people with cancer. As treatments extend survival and the potential burdens on carers increase, there is a need to assess the impact of the role. This systematic review identified instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, evaluated their psychometric performance specifically in cancer and appraised the content. METHODS: A two-stage search strategy was employed to: (1) identify instruments that measure the impact of caregiving, and (2) run individual searches on each measure to identify publications evaluating psychometric performance in the target population. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO and restricted to English for instrument used and article language. Psychometric performance was evaluated for content and construct validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, precision, responsiveness and acceptability. Individual scale items were extracted and systematically categorised into conceptual domains. RESULTS: Ten papers were included reporting on the psychometric properties of eight measures. Although construct validity and internal consistency were most frequently evaluated, no study comprehensively evaluated all relevant properties. Few studies met our inclusion criteria so it was not possible to consider the psychometric performance of the measures across a group of studies. Content analysis resulted in 16 domains with 5 overarching themes: lifestyle disruption; well-being; health of the caregiver; managing the situation and relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Few measures of caregiver impact have been subject to psychometric evaluation in cancer caregivers. Those that have do not capture well changes in roles and responsibilities within the family and career, indicating the need for a new instrument.

Psychosocial Factors Associated With Withdrawal From the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening After 1 Episode of Repeat Screening.

OBJECTIVE: The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) aims to establish the efficacy of 2 different ovarian cancer screening schedules. The psychosocial substudy examines the psychological factors associated with the screening program. METHODS: Women aged 50 to 75 years from 16 UK gynecologic centers randomized to annual multimodal screening or ultrasound screening (US) groups were followed up for 7 years. Psychosocial data from women who withdrew from the study after a repeat screen were examined. RESULTS: Sixteen percent (3499/21,733) of women requiring a repeat screening test in addition to annual screen withdrew from the study: 12.9% (1560/12,073) from the multimodal group and 20.1% (1939/9660) from the US group. An estimated relative risk of withdrawal is 1.46 (95% confidence interval, 1.36-1.56; P ≤ 0.001) for the US arm. High anxiety trait and increased psychological morbidity significantly influenced withdrawal, even when age, screening center, and group were taken into account (P < 0.001). The risk of withdrawal decreased significantly the longer a woman stayed in UKCTOCS, irrespective of the number of screens and intensity in the preceding year. CONCLUSIONS: Withdrawal rate was greater in women undergoing US screening and in those who had repeats earlier in UKCTOCS. Having a high predisposition to anxiety, high current state anxiety, and above threshold general psychological morbidity all increased the withdrawal rate.

Preference for subcutaneous or intravenous administration of trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer (PrefHer): an open-label randomised study.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous trastuzumab has shown non-inferior efficacy and a similar pharmacokinetic and safety profile when compared with intravenous trastuzumab in patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. We assessed patient preference for either subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab in the international, randomised PrefHer study. METHODS: Eligible patients were women aged 18 years or older with HER2-positive, histologically confirmed primary invasive breast adenocarcinoma, no evidence of residual, locally recurrent, or metastatic disease after completion of surgery and chemotherapy (neoadjuvant or adjuvant), an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and a baseline left-ventricular ejection fraction of 55% or more before the first dose of trastuzumab. Radiotherapy or hormone therapy was allowed. Patients were randomised (randomly permuted blocks of four) to receive four cycles of 600 mg fixed-dose subcutaneous adjuvant trastuzumab via a single-use injection device or hand-held syringe followed by four cycles of standard intravenous trastuzumab, or the reverse sequence. Randomisation was stratified by de-novo versus non-de-novo use of intravenous trastuzumab. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients indicating an overall preference for subcutaneous or intravenous trastuzumab, assessed by patient interview in the evaluable intention-to-treat (ITT) population (patients who completed both interviews and had at least one administration of both subcutaneous and intravenous trastuzumab). Data collection for PrefHer is ongoing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01401166. FINDINGS: 124 patients were randomly allocated to receive subcutaneous followed by intravenous trastuzumab, and 124 to receive the reverse sequence. 117 patients in the subcutaneous first group and 119 in the intravenous first group were included in the evaluable ITT population. Subcutaneous trastuzumab via the single-use injection device was preferred by 216 patients (91·5%, 95% CI 87·2-94·7; p<0·0001). Only 16 patients preferred intravenous trastuzumab (6·8%, 3·9-10·8), and four had no preference (1·7%, 0·5-4·3). Clinician-reported adverse events occurred in 141 of 242 (58%) patients during the pooled subcutaneous periods and 105 of 241 (44%) patients during the pooled intravenous periods; seven (3%) and five (2%) were grade 3, no patients had a grade 4 or 5 event. The most common grade 3 adverse event was influenza (two [0·8%] patients). INTERPRETATION: Patient preference and safety results from PrefHer, combined with the known non-inferior efficacy and pharmacokinetic and safety profile data, suggest that a fixed dose of 600 mg trastuzumab administered subcutaneously every 3 weeks is a validated, well tolerated treatment option for HER2-positive breast cancer, and is the preferred treatment of patients.

Recruiting women with ductal carcinoma in situ to a randomised controlled trial: lessons from the LORIS study.

BACKGROUND: The LOw RISk DCIS (LORIS) study was set up to compare conventional surgical treatment with active monitoring in women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Recruitment to trials with a surveillance arm is known to be challenging, so strategies to maximise patient recruitment, aimed at both patients and recruiting centres, were implemented. METHODS: Women aged ≥ 46 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of non-high-grade DCIS were eligible for 1:1 randomisation to either surgery or active monitoring. Prior to randomisation, all eligible women were invited to complete: (1) the Clinical Trials Questionnaire (CTQ) examining reasons for or against participation, and (2) interviews exploring in depth opinions about the study information sheets and film. Women agreeing to randomisation completed validated questionnaires assessing health status, physical and mental health, and anxiety levels. Hospital site staff were invited to communication workshops and refresher site initiation visits to support recruitment. Their perspectives on LORIS recruitment were collected via surveys and interviews. RESULTS: Eighty percent (181/227) of eligible women agreed to be randomised. Over 40% of participants had high anxiety levels at baseline. On the CTQ, the most frequent most important reasons for accepting randomisation were altruism and belief that the trial offered the best treatment, whilst worries about randomisation and the influences of others were the most frequent most important reasons for declining. Most women found the study information provided clear and useful. Communication workshops for site staff improved knowledge and confidence but only about half said they themselves would join LORIS if eligible. The most common recruitment barriers identified by staff were low numbers of eligible patients and patient preference. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment to LORIS was challenging despite strategies aimed at both patients and site staff. Ensuring that recruiting staff support the study could improve recruitment in similar future trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN27544579, prospectively registered on 22 May 2014.

Evaluation of an educational program to improve communication with patients about early-phase trial participation.

BACKGROUND: Discussing early-phase cancer trials is challenging; most offer little personal benefit to patients with life-limiting illnesses who frequently have a poor understanding of and misconceptions about the therapeutic aims. We evaluated an evidence-based training program aimed at enhancing communication. METHODS: Prior to and after the intervention, 47 health care professionals (HCPs) experienced in early-phase trial recruitment were audio taped discussing trials with patient simulators who completed postinterview evaluations. Coders rated the interviews for the presence of information areas required to elicit ethical consent. HCPs reported their self-confidence on 15 different aspects of trial discussion. RESULTS: Significant objective and subjective improvements in communication were found after the workshop. Analyses of audio tapes showed positive shifts in: establishing the patient's knowledge of their prognosis (odds ratio [OR], 2.7; p = .002), discussing symptomatic care (OR, 3.8; p < .001), the aims of the trial (OR, 2.6; p =.002), and the unlikelihood of medical benefit (OR, 3.0; p = .021). Patient simulator ratings showed improvements in: the awareness of palliative care and symptom control (OR, 2.1; p = .004), the voluntariness of participation (OR, 3.7; p = .015), the opportunity to ask questions (OR, 2.9; p = .044), and the time to consider participation (OR, 6.1; p = .009). HCPs' self-confidence increased significantly for all 15 items (OR range, 1.5-2.9; p ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: This short, intensive workshop changed communication skills competency and self-efficacy in ways likely to promote valid, ethically informed consent from patients contemplating trial entry.

POSNOC-POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy: a randomised controlled trial of axillary treatment in women with early-stage breast cancer who have metastases in one or two sentinel nodes.

INTRODUCTION: ACOSOG-Z0011(Z11) trial showed that axillary node clearance (ANC) may be omitted in women with ≤2 positive nodes undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS) and whole breast radiotherapy (RT). A confirmatory study is needed to clarify the role of axillary treatment in women with ≤2 macrometastases undergoing BCS and groups that were not included in Z11 for example, mastectomy and those with microscopic extranodal invasion. The primary objective of POsitive Sentinel NOde: adjuvant therapy alone versus adjuvant therapy plus Clearance or axillary radiotherapy (POSNOC) is to evaluate whether for women with breast cancer and 1 or 2 macrometastases, adjuvant therapy alone is non-inferior to adjuvant therapy plus axillary treatment, in terms of 5-year axillary recurrence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: POSNOC is a pragmatic, multicentre, non-inferiority, international trial with participants randomised in a 1:1 ratio. Women are eligible if they have T1/T2, unifocal or multifocal invasive breast cancer, and 1 or 2 macrometastases at sentinel node biopsy, with or without extranodal extension. In the intervention group women receive adjuvant therapy alone, in the standard care group they receive ANC or axillary RT. In both groups women receive adjuvant therapy, according to local guidelines. This includes systemic therapy and, if indicated, RT to breast or chest wall. The UK Radiotherapy Trials Quality Assurance Group manages the in-built radiotherapy quality assurance programme. Primary endpoint is 5-year axillary recurrence. Secondary outcomes are arm morbidity assessed by Lymphoedema and Breast Cancer Questionnaire and QuickDASH questionnaires; quality of life and anxiety as assessed with FACT B+4 and State/Trait Anxiety Inventory questionnaires, respectively; other oncological outcomes; economic evaluation using EQ-5D-5L. Target sample size is 1900. Primary analysis is per protocol. Recruitment started on 1 August 2014 and as of 9 June 2021, 1866 participants have been randomised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Protocol was approved by the National Research Ethics Service Committee East Midlands-Nottingham 2 (REC reference: 13/EM/0459). Results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54765244; NCT0240168Cite Now.