Development of a Core Outcome Set for the research and assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction is experienced by 15% of people with advanced cancer, preventing them from eating and drinking and causing pain, nausea and vomiting. Surgery is not always appropriate. Management options include tube or stent drainage of intestinal contents and symptom control using medication. Published literature describing palliative interventions uses a broad range of outcome measures, few of which are patient-relevant. This hinders evidence synthesis, and fails to consider the perspectives of people undergoing treatment. AIMS: To develop a Core Outcome Set for the assessment of inoperable malignant bowel obstruction with clinician, patient and caregiver involvement, using COMET methodology (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). METHODS: A systematic review of clinical trials and observational studies, a rapid review of the qualitative literature and in-depth patient and clinician interviews were conducted to identify a comprehensive list of outcomes. Outcomes were compared and consolidated by the study Steering Group and Patient and Public Involvement contributors, and presented to an international clinical Expert Panel for review. Outcomes from the finalised list were rated for importance in a three-round international Delphi process: results of two survey rounds were circulated to respondents, and two separate consensus meetings were conducted with clinicians and with patients and caregivers via virtual conferencing, using live polling to reach agreement on a Core Outcome Set. RESULTS: 130 unique outcomes were identified. Following the independent Expert Panel review, 82 outcomes were taken into round 1 of the Delphi survey; 24 outcomes reached criteria for critical importance across all stakeholder groups and none reached criteria for dropping. All outcomes rated critically important were taken forward for re-rating in round 2 and all other outcomes dropped. In round 2, all outcomes were voted critically important by at least one stakeholder group. Round 2 outcomes were presented again at online consensus meetings, categorised as high ranking (n = 9), middle ranking (n = 7) or low ranking (n = 8). Stakeholders reached agreement on 16 core outcomes across four key domains: Symptom control, Life impact, Treatment outcomes, and Communication and patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Use of this Core Outcome Set can help to address current challenges in making sense of the evidence around treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction to date, and underpin a more robust future approach. Clearer communication and an honest understanding between all stakeholders will help to provide a basis for responsible decision-making in this distressing situation in clinical practice.

The range and suitability of outcome measures used in the assessment of palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction, a complication of certain advanced cancers, causes severe symptoms which profoundly affect quality of life. Clinical management remains complex, and outcome assessment is inconsistent. AIM: To identify outcomes evaluating palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction, as part of a four-phase study developing a core outcome set. DESIGN: The review is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA); PROSPERO (ID: CRD42019150648). Eligible studies included at least one subgroup with obstruction below the ligament of Treitz undergoing palliative treatment for inoperable malignant bowel obstruction. Study quality was not assessed because the review does not evaluate efficacy. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Database, CINAHL, PSYCinfo Caresearch, Open Grey and BASE were searched for trials and observational studies in October 2021. RESULTS: A total of 4769 studies were screened, 290 full texts retrieved and 80 (13,898 participants) included in a narrative synthesis; 343 outcomes were extracted verbatim and pooled into 90 unique terms across six domains: physiological, nutrition, life impact, resource use, mortality and survival. Prevalent outcomes included adverse events (78% of studies), survival (54%), symptom control (39%) and mortality (31%). Key individual symptoms assessed were vomiting (41% of studies), nausea (34%) and pain (33%); 19% of studies assessed quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Assessment focuses on survival, complications and overall symptom control. There is a need for definitions of treatment 'success' that are meaningful to patients, a more consistent approach to symptom assessment, and greater consideration of how to measure wellbeing in this population.

Symptom burden and lived experiences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals on the management of malignant bowel obstruction: A qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Malignant bowel obstruction occurs in up to 50% of people with advanced ovarian and 15% of people with gastrointestinal cancers. Evaluation and comparison of interventions to manage symptoms are hampered by inconsistent evaluations of efficacy and lack of agreed core outcomes. The patient perspective is rarely incorporated. AIM: To synthesise the qualitative data regarding patient, caregiver and healthcare professionals' views and experience of malignant bowel obstruction to inform the development of a core outcome set for the evaluation of malignant bowel obstruction. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was conducted, with narrative synthesis. The review protocol was registered prospectively (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero, CRD42020176393). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Scopus databases were searched for studies published between 2010 and 2021. Reference lists were screened for further relevant publications, and citation tracking was performed. RESULTS: Nine papers were included, reporting on seven studies which described the views and experiences of malignant bowel obstruction through the perspectives of 75 patients, 13 caregivers and 62 healthcare professionals. Themes across the papers included symptom burden, diverse experiences of interventions, impact on patient quality of life, implications and trajectory of malignant bowel obstruction, mixed experience of communication and the importance of realistic goals of care. CONCLUSION: Some of the most devastating sequelae of malignant bowel obstruction, such as pain and psychological distress, are not included routinely in its clinical or research evaluation. These data will contribute to a wider body of work to ensure the patient and caregiver perspective is recognised in the development of a core outcome set.

Development of a core outcome set to use in the research and assessment of malignant bowel obstruction: protocol for the RAMBO study.

INTRODUCTION: Studies regarding the management of malignant bowel obstruction (MBO) report conflicting findings. This is partly due to different outcome measures being used to evaluate severity of MBO and the response to treatments. Furthermore, current outcome measures focus mainly on measurable physiological parameters which may not correlate strongly with patient-defined quality of life. The development of core outcome sets allows a consistent approach to evaluating clinical conditions taking into consideration patient, healthcare professional and researcher viewpoints. It follows an internationally recognised standard methodology. We present a protocol for the development of a core outcome set for Research and Assessment of MBO (RAMBO). METHODS: RAMBO is a multicentre study, comprising of four phases: a systematic review to examine current scope of outcome measures associated with MBO (phase I). Interviews with patients, companions and healthcare professionals will explore priorities and preferences for care and outcomes (phase II). An expert panel meeting will collate the findings into a set of outcomes (phase III), refined by consensus through a Delphi survey with key stakeholders (phase IV). The final set of outcomes will be ratified at a consensus meeting. Each step will actively include patient partners. Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (Wales REC 5, REF: 19/LO/1876). Study participants and relevant stakeholders will be updated with newsletters and a lay summary at the end of the study. Abstracts will be submitted to national and international conferences, result papers will be submitted to peer-reviewed, open access journals. TRIAL AND PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBERS: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (1402); Systematic Literature Review (CRD42019150648); Rapid Review (CRD42020176393).

Predictors of patient preference for either whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) or CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Whole body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) may be more efficient in staging cancers, but can be harder for patients to tolerate. We examined predictors of patient preference for WB-MRI vs. CT/ PET-CT for staging colorectal or lung cancer. METHODS: Patients recruited prospectively to two multicentre trials comparing diagnostic accuracy of WB-MRI with standard staging scans were sent two questionnaires: the first, administered at trial registration, captured demographics, educational level and comorbidities; the second, administered after staging completion, measured emotional distress (GHQ-12), positive mood (PANAS), perceived scan burden, patients' beliefs about WB-MRI, and preference for either WB-MRI or CT (colorectal trial), WB-MRI or PET-CT (lung trial). Preference for WB-MRI or CT/ PET-CT was analysed using logistic regression. RESULTS: Baseline and post-staging questionnaires were completed by 97 and 107 patients, respectively. Overall, 56/107 (52%) preferred WB-MRI over standard scans and were more likely to have no additional comorbidities, higher positive mood, greater awareness of potential benefits of WB-MRI and lower levels of perceived WB-MRI scan burden. In adjusted analyses, only awareness of potential WB-MRI benefits remained a significant predictor (OR: 1.516, 95% CIs 1.006-2.284, P = 0.047). Knowledge that WB-MRI does not use radiation predicted preference (adjusted OR: 3.018, 95% CIs 1.099-8.288, P = 0.032), although only 45/107 (42%) patients were aware of this attribute. CONCLUSIONS: A small majority of patients undergoing staging of colorectal or lung cancer prefer WB-MRI to CT/ PET-CT. Raising awareness of the potential benefits of WB-MRI, notably lack of ionizing radiation, could influence preference.

Whole-body MRI compared with standard pathways for staging metastatic disease in lung and colorectal cancer: the Streamline diagnostic accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging is advocated as an alternative to standard pathways for staging cancer. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to compare diagnostic accuracy, efficiency, patient acceptability, observer variability and cost-effectiveness of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways in staging newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L) and colorectal cancer (Streamline C). DESIGN: The design was a prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: The setting was 16 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years with histologically proven or suspected colorectal (Streamline C) or non-small-cell lung cancer (Streamline L). INTERVENTIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. Standard staging investigations (e.g. computed tomography and positron emission tomography-computed tomography). REFERENCE STANDARD: Consensus panel decision using 12-month follow-up data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was per-patient sensitivity difference between whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard staging pathways for metastasis. Secondary outcomes included differences in specificity, the nature of the first major treatment decision, time and number of tests to complete staging, patient experience and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Streamline C - 299 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 67% (95% confidence interval 56% to 78%) and 63% (95% confidence interval 51% to 74%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -5% to 13%; p = 0.51). Specificity was 95% (95% confidence interval 92% to 97%) and 93% (95% confidence interval 90% to 96%) respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 6%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 96% and 95% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 8 days (95% confidence interval 6 to 9 days) and 13 days (95% confidence interval 11 to 15 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 5 days (95% confidence interval 3 to 7 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £216 (95% confidence interval £211 to £221) versus £285 (95% confidence interval £260 to £310). Streamline L - 187 participants were included. Per-patient sensitivity for metastatic disease was 50% (95% confidence interval 37% to 63%) and 54% (95% confidence interval 41% to 67%) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (95% confidence interval -7% to 15%; p = 0.73). Specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval 88% to 96%) and 95% (95% confidence interval 91% to 98%), respectively, a difference of 2% (95% confidence interval -2% to 7%). Pathway treatment decisions agreed with the multidisciplinary team treatment decision in 98% and 99% of cases, respectively, a difference of 1% (95% confidence interval -2% to 4%). Time for staging was 13 days (95% confidence interval 12 to 14 days) and 19 days (95% confidence interval 17 to 21 days) for whole-body magnetic resonance imaging and standard pathways, respectively, a difference of 6 days (95% confidence interval 4 to 8 days). The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was cheaper than the standard staging pathway: £317 (95% confidence interval £273 to £361) versus £620 (95% confidence interval £574 to £666). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most participants preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway if it reduced time to staging and/or number of tests. LIMITATIONS: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was interpreted by practitioners blinded to other clinical data, which may not fully reflect how it is used in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: In colorectal and non-small-cell lung cancer, the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging staging pathway has similar accuracy to standard staging pathways, is generally preferred by patients, improves staging efficiency and has lower staging costs. Future work should address the utility of whole-body magnetic resonance imaging for treatment response assessment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN43958015 and ISRCTN50436483. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Colorectal and lung cancer are the leading causes of cancer-related deaths in the UK. Optimal treatment depends on accurately defining (or 'staging') the extent of disease, particularly if it has spread to other parts of the body such as the liver. Current staging pathways are complex and rely on a variety of tests that use X-rays, such as computed tomography and positron emission tomography­computed tomography scans. Patients often undergo multiple tests before starting treatment. Alternatively, it is possible to scan the whole body using magnetic resonance imaging without X-rays, and this may be more accurate and reduce the time and number of tests needed before treatment can start. We compared the ability to detect cancer spread, efficiency, patient experience and cost-effectiveness of staging based on whole-body magnetic resonance imaging with the standard NHS pathways in participants newly diagnosed with either lung (187 participants) or colorectal (299 participants) cancer. We found that the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was as accurate as standard staging pathways and resulted in very similar treatment decisions made by the clinical teams. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway detected 67% and 50% of participants with cancer spread in colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with 63% and 54%, respectively, for standard staging. However, staging was quicker using whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (by 5 days for colorectal cancer and 6 days for lung cancer) and needed on average one less test to stage colorectal cancer. The whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway was also cheaper (costing on average £216 and £317 for colorectal and lung cancer, respectively, compared with £285 and £620, respectively, for standard pathways). Participants generally found whole-body magnetic resonance imaging more burdensome than standard imaging but most preferred the whole-body magnetic resonance imaging pathway if it reduced the time to staging and/or the number of tests. Agreement between different radiology doctors interpreting the same whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan was moderate for colon cancer and low for lung cancer, emphasising the need for training.

Development of a core information set for colorectal cancer surgery: a consensus study.

OBJECTIVE: 'Core information sets' (CISs) represent baseline information, agreed by patients and professionals, to stimulate individualised patient-centred discussions. This study developed a CIS for use before colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery. DESIGN: Three phase consensus study: (1) Systematic literature reviews and patient interviews to identify potential information of importance to patients, (2) UK national Delphi survey of patients and professionals to rate the importance of the information, (3) international consensus meeting to agree on the final CIS. SETTING: UK CRC centres. PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure CRC centre representation based upon geographical region and caseload volume. Responses were received from 63/81 (78%) centres (90 professionals). Adult patients who had undergone CRC surgery were eligible, and purposive sampling was conducted to ensure representation based on age, sex and cancer location (rectum, left and right colon). Responses were received from 97/267 (35%) patients with a wide age range (29-87), equal sex ratio and cancer location. Attendees of the international Tripartite Colorectal Conference were eligible for the consensus meeting. OUTCOMES: Phase 1: Information of potential importance to patients was extracted verbatim and operationalised into a Delphi questionnaire. Phase 2: Patients and professionals rated the importance information on a 9-point Likert scale, and resurveyed following group feedback. Information rated of low importance were discarded using predefined criteria. Phase 3: A modified nominal group technique was used to gain final consensus in separate consensus meetings with patients and professionals. RESULTS: Data sources identified 1216 pieces of information that informed a 98-item questionnaire. Analysis led to 50 and 23 information domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. The final CIS included 11 concepts including specific surgical complications, short and long-term survival, disease recurrence, stoma and quality of life issues. CONCLUSIONS: This study has established a CIS for professionals to discuss with patients before CRC surgery.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed colorectal cancer: the prospective Streamline C trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body MRI (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multimodality staging of colorectal cancer, but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in colorectal cancer. METHODS: The Streamline C trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed colorectal cancer. Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or polyp cancer. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs), and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN43958015, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between March 26, 2013, and Aug 19, 2016, 1020 patients were screened for eligibility. 370 patients were recruited, 299 of whom completed the trial; 68 (23%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 67% (95% CI 56 to 78) for WB-MRI and 63% (51 to 74) for standard pathways, a difference in sensitivity of 4% (-5 to 13, p=0·51). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (95% [95% CI 92-97]) and standard pathways (93% [90-96], p=0·48). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 96% for WB-MRI and 95% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (median, 8 days [IQR 6-9]) than for the standard pathway (13 days [11-15]); a 5-day (3-7) difference. WB-MRI required fewer tests (median, one [95% CI 1 to 1]) than did standard pathways (two [2 to 2]), a difference of one (1 to 1). Mean per-patient staging costs were £216 (95% CI 211-221) for WB-MRI and £285 (260-310) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways and reduce the number of tests needed, staging time, and cost. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Diagnostic accuracy of whole-body MRI versus standard imaging pathways for metastatic disease in newly diagnosed non-small-cell lung cancer: the prospective Streamline L trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (WB-MRI) could be an alternative to multi-modality staging of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but its diagnostic accuracy, effect on staging times, number of tests needed, cost, and effect on treatment decisions are unknown. We aimed to prospectively compare the diagnostic accuracy and efficiency of WB-MRI-based staging pathways with standard pathways in NSCLC. METHODS: The Streamline L trial was a prospective, multicentre trial done in 16 hospitals in England. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, with newly diagnosed NSCLC that was potentially radically treatable on diagnostic chest CT (defined as stage IIIb or less). Exclusion criteria were severe systemic disease, pregnancy, contraindications to MRI, or histologies other than NSCLC. Patients underwent WB-MRI, the result of which was withheld until standard staging investigations were complete and the first treatment decision made. The multidisciplinary team recorded its treatment decision based on standard investigations, then on the WB-MRI staging pathway (WB-MRI plus additional tests generated), and finally on all tests. The primary outcome was difference in per-patient sensitivity for metastases between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways against a consensus reference standard at 12 months, in the per-protocol population. Secondary outcomes were difference in per-patient specificity for metastatic disease detection between standard and WB-MRI staging pathways, differences in treatment decisions, staging efficiency (time taken, test number, and costs) and per-organ sensitivity and specificity for metastases and per-patient agreement for local T and N stage. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, number ISRCTN50436483, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and Sept 5, 2016, 976 patients were screened for eligibility. 353 patients were recruited, 187 of whom completed the trial; 52 (28%) had metastasis at baseline. Pathway sensitivity was 50% (95% CI 37-63) for WB-MRI and 54% (41-67) for standard pathways, a difference of 4% (-7 to 15, p=0·73). No adverse events related to imaging were reported. Specificity did not differ between WB-MRI (93% [88-96]) and standard pathways (95% [91-98], p=0·45). Agreement with the multidisciplinary team's final treatment decision was 98% for WB-MRI and 99% for the standard pathway. Time to complete staging was shorter for WB-MRI (13 days [12-14]) than for the standard pathway (19 days [17-21]); a 6-day (4-8) difference. The number of tests required was similar WB-MRI (one [1-1]) and standard pathways (one [1-2]). Mean per-patient costs were £317 (273-361) for WBI-MRI and £620 (574-666) for standard pathways. INTERPRETATION: WB-MRI staging pathways have similar accuracy to standard pathways, and reduce the staging time and costs. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research.

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard "core" set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). CONCLUSION: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice.

Trial outcomes and information for clinical decision-making: a comparative study of opinions of health professionals.

BACKGROUND: Trials are robust sources of data for clinical practice; however, trial outcomes may not reflect what is important to communicate for decision-making. The study compared clinicians' views of outcomes to include in a core outcome set for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, with what clinicians considered important information for clinical practice (core information). METHODS: Potential outcome/information domains were identified through systematic literature reviews, reviews of hospital information leaflets and interviews with patients. These were organized into six categories and used to design a questionnaire survey that asked surgeons and nurses from a sample of CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain as an outcome or as information on a nine-point Likert scale. Respondents were re-surveyed (round 2) following group feedback (Delphi methods). Comparisons were made by calculating the difference in mean scores between the outcomes and information domains, and paired t tests were used to explore the difference between mean scores of the six outcome/information categories. RESULTS: Data sources identified 1216 outcome/information items for CRC surgery that informed a 94-item questionnaire. First-round questionnaires were returned from 63/81 (78 %) of centers. Clinicians rated 76/94 (84 %) domains of higher importance to measure in trials than information to communicate to patients in round 1. This was reduced to 24/47 (51 %) in round 2. The greatest difference was evident in domains regarding survival, which was rated much more highly as a trial outcome than an important piece of information for decision-making (difference in mean 2.3, 95 % CI 1.9 to 2.8, p <0.0001). Specific complications and quality-of-life domains were rated similarly (difference in mean 0.18, 95 % CI -0.1 to 0.4, p = 0.2 and difference in mean 0.2, 95 % CI -0.1 to 0.5, p = 0.2, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst clinicians want to measure key outcomes in trials, they rate these as less important to communicate in decision-making with patients. This discrepancy needs to be explored and addressed to maximize the impact of trials on clinical practice.

A randomised phase III trial of the pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin in advanced colorectal cancer: results of the Panitumumab, Irinotecan & Ciclosporin in COLOrectal cancer therapy trial (PICCOLO).

BACKGROUND: The main toxicity of irinotecan in advanced colorectal cancer (CRC) is delayed diarrhoea. Intestinal SN-38, released by deconjugation of the parent glucuronide excreted into the bile or produced in situ by intestinal carboxylesterase, is toxic to the intestinal epithelium. The canalicular transport of irinotecan and SN-38G is mediated by ABCC2 (MRP2) and ABCB1 (MDR1) which are both inhibited by ciclosporin. We tested whether irinotecan and ciclosporin was non-inferior for anti-cancer efficacy and superior for toxicity compared with single-agent irinotecan. METHODS: Six hundred and seventy-two patients with advanced, measurable CRC following prior fluoropyrimidine-containing chemotherapy were randomised to either irinotecan 3-weekly 350 mg/m(2) (or 300 mg/m(2) if age >70 or performance status (PS)=2) or 3-weekly irinotecan at 140 mg/m(2) (120 mg/m(2) if age >70 or PS=2) with ciclosporin 3mg/kg t.d.s. for three days by mouth starting on the morning before irinotecan. The primary end-point was the proportion of patients alive and progression-free at 12 weeks. The key secondary end-point was the incidence of grade ≥3 diarrhoea within 12 weeks of randomisation. RESULTS: The proportion of patients progression-free at 12 weeks with irinotecan was 53.4% compared to 47.2% with irinotecan plus ciclosporin (difference=-6.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) [-13.8%, 1.3%]). Since the lower limit of the 95% CI crossed the pre-specified non-inferiority margin of -10.6%, non-inferiority of irinotecan plus ciclosporin compared to irinotecan alone was not statistically demonstrated. 15.0% patients developed severe diarrhoea on irinotecan compared to 13.8% on irinotecan plus ciclosporin, a non-significant difference. INTERPRETATION: The pharmacokinetic biomodulation of irinotecan using oral ciclosporin does not improve the therapeutic index of irinotecan in advanced CRC. FUNDING: The trial was funded by Cancer Research UK and supported by Amgen Pharma.

Panitumumab and irinotecan versus irinotecan alone for patients with KRAS wild-type, fluorouracil-resistant advanced colorectal cancer (PICCOLO): a prospectively stratified randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic antibodies targeting EGFR have activity in advanced colorectal cancer, but results from clinical trials are inconsistent and the population in which most benefit is derived is uncertain. Our aim was to assess the addition of panitumumab to irinotecan in pretreated advanced colorectal cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised trial, we enrolled patients who had advanced colorectal cancer progressing after fluoropyrimidine treatment with or without oxaliplatin from 60 centres in the UK. From December, 2006 until June, 2008, molecularly unselected patients were recruited to a three-arm design including irinotecan (control), irinotecan plus ciclosporin, and irinotecan plus panitumumab (IrPan) groups. From June 10, 2008, in response to new data, the trial was amended to a prospectively stratified design, restricting panitumumab randomisation to patients with KRAS wild-type tumours; the results of the comparison between the irinotcan and IrPan groups are reported here. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence (stratified by previous EGFR targeted therapy and then minimised by centre, WHO performance status, previous oxaliplatin, previous bevacizumab, previous dose modifications, and best previous response) to randomly allocate patients to either irinotecan or IrPan. Patients in both groups received 350 mg/m(2) intravenous irinotecan every 3 weeks (300 mg/m(2) if aged ≥70 years or a performance status of 2); patients in the IrPan group also received intravenous panitumumab 9 mg/kg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was overall survival in KRAS wild-type patients who had not received previous EGFR targeted therapy, analysed by intention to treat. Tumour DNA was pyrosequenced for KRASc.146, BRAF, NRAS, and PIK3CA mutations, and predefined molecular subgroups were analysed for interaction with the effect of panitumumab. This study is registered, number ISRCTN93248876. RESULTS: Between Dec 4, 2006, and Aug 31, 2010, 1198 patients were enrolled, of whom 460 were included in the primary population of patients with KRASc.12-13,61 wild-type tumours and no previous EGFR targeted therapy. 230 patients were randomly allocated to irinotecan and 230 to IrPan. There was no difference in overall survival between groups (HR 1·01, 95% CI 0·83-1·23; p=0·91), but individuals in the IrPan group had longer progression-free survival (0·78, 0·64-0·95; p=0·015) and a greater number of responses (79 [34%] patients vs 27 [12%]; p<0·0001) than did individuals in the irinotecan group. Grade 3 or worse diarrhoea (64 [29%] of 219 patients vs 39 [18%] of 218 patients), skin toxicity (41 [19%] vs none), lethargy (45 [21]% vs 24 [11%]), infection (42 [19%] vs 22 [10%]) and haematological toxicity (48 [22%] vs 27 [12%]) were reported more commonly in the IrPan group than in the irinotecan group. We recorded five treatment-related deaths, two in the IrPan group and three in the irinotecan group. INTERPRETATION: Adding panitumumab to irinotecan did not improve the overall survival of patients with wild-type KRAS tumours. Further refinement of molecular selection is needed for substantial benefits to be derived from EGFR targeting agents. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen Inc.