IMPARTER, Phase 1 of an intervention to improve patients' understanding of gene expression profiling tests in breast cancer.

PURPOSE: To compare participants' knowledge about gene expression profiling (GEP) tests and recurrence risks after reading an information leaflet with that following viewing of an information film. METHODS: Using a randomised cross-over design, at time-point one (T1), women aged 45-75 years without breast cancer either read leaflets or watched information films about Oncotype DX or Prosigna tests. Participants answered nine questions assessing knowledge (maximum score 18). Next-day information in the opposite modality was provided and knowledge re-assessed. Additional questions probed which format was easiest to understand, participants' preferences for film or leaflet and their reasons for these. RESULTS: 120 women participated (60 received OncotypeDX films and leaflets; 60 received the Prosigna versions). T1 mean knowledge scores were higher following film viewing (13.37) compared with that after reading leaflets (9.25) (mean difference 4.1; p < 0.0001; 95% CI 3.2, 5.0). When participants read leaflets first and subsequently viewed films, all increased their scores (mean + 6.08, from T1 of 9.25, p < 0.0001; 95% CI 5.44, 6.72). When films were viewed first, followed by leaflets, (36/60, 60%), participants' scores declined (mean-1.55 from T1 of 13.37, p < 0.001; 95% CI -2.32, -0.78). A majority of participants expressed preferences for the films (88/120, 73.3%) irrespective as to whether they described OncotypeDX or Prosigna. Reasons included the clarity, ease of understanding, visual material and reassuring voice-over. CONCLUSION: Discussions between oncologists and patients about recurrence risk results can be challenging. Information leaflets may aid understanding but often employ complex language. Information films significantly improved knowledge and were preferred by participants.

Drivers and barriers to patient participation in RCTs.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of patients into randomised clinical trials (RCTs) is essential for treatment evaluation. Appreciation of the barriers and drivers towards participation is important for trial design, communication and information provision. METHOD: As part of an intervention to facilitate effective multidisciplinary team communication about RCTs, cancer patients completed two study-specific questionnaires following trial discussions. One questionnaire examined reasons why patients accepted or declined trial entry, the other perceptions about their health-care professionals' (HCPs) information giving. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 74% (358/486) of patients approached; of these 81% (291/358) had joined an RCT, 16% (56/358) had declined and 3% (11/358) were undecided. Trial participation status of the 128 patients not returning questionnaires is unknown. Trial acceptance was not dependent on disease stage, tumour type, sex or age. Satisfaction with trial information and HCPs' communication was generally very good, irrespective of participation decisions. The primary reason given for trial acceptance was altruism (40%; 110/275), and for declining, trust in the doctor (28%; 12/43). Decliners preferred doctors to choose their treatment rather than be randomised (54% vs 39%; P<0.027). Acceptors were more likely to perceive doctors as wanting them to join trials (54% vs 30%; P<0.001). Trial type, that is, standard treatment vs novel or different durations of treatment, also influenced acceptance rates. CONCLUSION: The drivers and barriers to trial participation are partly related to trial design. Unease about randomisation and impact of duration on treatment efficacy are barriers for some. Altruism and HCPs' perceived attitudes are powerful influencing factors.

Teams Talking Trials: results of an RCT to improve the communication of cancer teams about treatment trials.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that communication between members of multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) is often suboptimal and communication about trials between MDTs and their patients is difficult. Educational interventions can help dyadic exchanges with different aspects of trial recruitment but less work has focussed on team interventions. METHODS: 22 multidisciplinary cancer teams in the UK participated in an RCT of a novel Teams Talking Trials (TTT) Workshop aimed at improving the following: awareness, involvement, communication and recruitment to cancer trials. MDTs were randomised following either 6 or 12 months of audits, which were repeated after the intervention. Audits included numbers approached about trials, team members' attitudes, involvement and awareness of their teams' trial portfolios. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the rate of approaching patients about trials post workshop (estimated improvement 22% higher regression coefficient of 0.2, exp. (0.2)=1.22). There was improvement in team members' involvement in trials in 4 areas (p≤0.04): the pressure to enter patients into RCTs, the likelihood of a start-up meeting to discuss a newly accepted trial, the informational role played by individuals and recognition of this HCP's role by other team members. Also, confidence in communication about RCTS increased and awareness of different aspects of trial management improved on all 14 aspects (p=0.001). CONCLUSION: Attendance by teams at focussed workshops designed to enhance communication and trial recruitment improved several aspects of team functioning, but a significant impact on the number of patients approached could not be demonstrated.

Clinicians' attitudes towards clinical trials of cancer therapy.

BACKGROUND: Patient accrual into cancer clinical trials remains at low levels. This survey elicited attitudes and practices of cancer clinicians towards clinical trials. METHOD: The 43-item Clinicians Attitudes to Clinical Trials Questionnaire was completed by participants in an intervention study aimed at improving multi-disciplinary involvement in randomised trials. Responses from 13 items were summed to form a research-orientation score. RESULTS: Eighty-seven clinicians (78%) returned questionnaires. Physicians, more often than surgeons, chose to prioritise prolonging a patient's life, recruited ≥50% of patients into trials and attended more research-focussed conferences. Clinicians at specialist centres were more positive about trials with no-treatment arms than those at district general hospitals, more likely to believe clinician, rather than patient reluctance to participate was the greater obstacle to trial accrual, and preferred national and international to local recognition. Clinicians belonging to breast and colorectal teams were less disappointed about not enrolling patients in trials and more accepting of no-treatment arm trials. Research orientation was higher in physicians than surgeons and higher in specialist centres than district hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides greater understanding of clinicians' attitudes to trials. Results have been used to inform training interventions for clinicians targeting the problem of low and selective accrual.

The attitudes of 1066 patients with cancer towards participation in randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: barriers to randomised clinical trial (RCT) recruitment include failure to identify eligible patients, reluctance of staff to approach them and attitudes of some health-care professionals and patients. As part of a larger UK prospective study examining the communication and involvement in RCTs of 22 multidisciplinary teams in Wales, we also assessed the attitudes of patients they treat towards trials. METHODS: out of 1146 patients attending outpatient departments who were approached, 1146 (93%) completed the seven-item Attitudes to Randomised Trials Questionnaire (ARTQ), probing their general attitudes towards medical research and likely participation in a hypothetical two-arm RCT. RESULTS: randomisation initially deterred many patients from endorsing a willingness to participate. However, if information about the trial logic, voluntary nature and rights to withdraw were provided, together with further treatment details, 83% (886 out of 1066) would potentially participate. Other variables associated with a positive inclination towards participation included previous trial experience (P<0.01), male gender (P<0.01) and younger age, with patients > or =70 years less likely to consider trial entry (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: the majority of patients were receptive to RCT participation. Many of those initially disinclined because of randomisation would consider joining if given further details that form part of standard GCP consent guidelines. These data show the importance and need for clear communication and information to encourage RCT participation. Evidence-based training courses are available to assist with this.

What determines the cost-effectiveness of diabetes screening?

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The cost-effectiveness of screening for diabetes is unknown but has been modelled previously. None of these models has taken account of uncertainty. We aimed to describe these uncertainties in a model where the outcome was CHD risk. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Our model used population data from the Danish Inter99 study, and simulations were run in a theoretical population of 1,000,000 individuals. CHD risk was estimated using the UK Prospective Diabetes Study (UKPDS) risk engine, and risk reduction from published randomised clinical trials. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was used to provide confidence intervals for modelled outputs. Uncertain parameter values were independently simulated from distributions derived from existing literature and deterministic sensitivity analysis performed using multiple model runs under different strategy choices and using extreme parameter estimates. RESULTS: In the least conservative model (low costs and multiplicative risk reduction for combined treatments), the 95% confidence interval of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio varied from pound23,300-82,000. The major contributors to this uncertainty were treatment risk reduction model parameters: the risk reduction for hypertension treatment and UKPDS risk model intercept. Overall cost-effectiveness ratio was not sensitive to decisions about which groups to screen, nor the costs of screening or treatment. It was strongly affected by assumptions about how treatments combine to reduce risk. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Our model suggests that there is considerable uncertainty about whether or not screening for diabetes would be cost-effective. The most important but uncertain parameter is the effect of treatment. In addition to directly influencing current policy decisions, health care modelling can identify important unknown or uncertain parameters that may be the target of future research.