A randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention (Renewed) to support symptom management, wellbeing and quality of life in cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Many cancer survivors following primary treatment have prolonged poor quality of life. AIM: To determine the effectiveness of a bespoke digital intervention to support cancer survivors. DESIGN: Pragmatic parallel open randomised trial. SETTING: UK general practices. METHODS: People having finished primary treatment (<= 10 years previously) for colo-rectal, breast or prostate cancers, with European-Organization-for-Research-and-Treatment-of-Cancer QLQ-C30 score <85, were randomised by online software to: 1)detailed 'generic' digital NHS support ('LiveWell';n=906), 2) a bespoke complex digital intervention ('Renewed';n=903) addressing symptom management, physical activity, diet, weight loss, distress, or 3) 'Renewed-with-support' (n=903): 'Renewed' with additional brief email and telephone support. RESULTS: Mixed linear regression provided estimates of the differences between each intervention group and generic advice: at 6 months (primary time point: n's respectively 806;749;705) all groups improved, with no significant between-group differences for EORTC QLQ-C30, but global health improved more in both intervention groups. By 12 months there were: small improvements in EORTC QLQ-C30 for Renewed-with-support (versus generic advice: 1.42, 95% CIs 0.33-2.51); both groups improved global health (12 months: renewed: 3.06, 1.39-4.74; renewed-with-support: 2.78, 1.08-4.48), dyspnoea, constipation, and enablement, and lower NHS costs (generic advice £265: in comparison respectively £141 (153-128) and £77 (90-65) lower); and for Renewed-with-support improvement in several other symptom subscales. No harms were identified. CONCLUSION: Cancer survivors quality of life improved with detailed generic online support. Robustly developed bespoke digital support provides limited additional short term benefit, but additional longer term improvement in global health enablement and symptom management, with substantially lower NHS costs.

Patient blood management interventions do not lead to important clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness for major surgery: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management (PBM) interventions aim to improve clinical outcomes by reducing bleeding and transfusion. We assessed whether existing evidence supports the routine use of combinations of these interventions during and after major surgery. METHODS: Five systematic reviews and a National Institute of Health and Care Excellence health economic review of trials of common PBM interventions enrolling participants of any age undergoing surgery were updated. The last search was on June 1, 2019. Studies in trauma, burns, gastrointestinal haemorrhage, gynaecology, dentistry, or critical care were excluded. The co-primary outcomes were: risk of receiving red cell transfusion and 30-day or hospital all-cause mortality. Treatment effects were estimated using random-effects models and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity assessments used I2. Network meta-analyses used a frequentist approach. The protocol was registered prospectively (PROSPERO CRD42018085730). RESULTS: Searches identified 393 eligible randomised controlled trials enrolling 54 917 participants. PBM interventions resulted in a reduction in exposure to red cell transfusion (RR=0.60; 95% CI 0.57, 0.63; I2=77%), but had no statistically significant treatment effect on 30-day or hospital mortality (RR=0.93; 95% CI 0.81, 1.07; I2=0%). Treatment effects were consistent across multiple secondary outcomes, sub-groups and sensitivity analyses that considered clinical setting, type of intervention, and trial quality. Network meta-analysis did not demonstrate additive benefits from the use of multiple interventions. No trial demonstrated that PBM was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: In randomised trials, PBM interventions do not have important clinical benefits beyond reducing bleeding and transfusion in people undergoing major surgery.

A feasibility study of a psycho-educational support intervention for men with prostate cancer on active surveillance.

BACKGROUND: PROACTIVE is a psycho-educational support intervention for prostate cancer patients managed on Active Surveillance. PROACTIVE is composed of two interdependent components: group workshops and internet-delivered information modules. AIMS: We conducted a feasibility study to determine the practicality of delivering PROACTIVE at two prostate cancer centres. METHODS AND RESULTS: The feasibility study was a mixed-methods randomized parallel-group exploratory trial. Participants were randomised using a ratio of 3:1 PROACTIVE group to treatment as usual. Qualitative semi-structured interviews and quantitative measures were completed at baseline, intervention completion (week 6), and at 6-month follow-up. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to examine recruitment and retention rates and changing trends in outcome measures. Most aspects of the research design and PROACTIVE intervention were acceptable to those participating in the study. In particular, participants valued the opportunity to share and discuss experiences with other prostate cancer patients on Active Surveillance and receive detailed authoritative information. However, three issues were identified: (a) a low response rate (13 participants recruited, response rate 16%), (b) low utilisation of internet delivered information modules, (c) self-perceived low levels of anxiety amongst participants with the majority perceiving their cancer as not impacting on their day-to-day life or causing anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Due to these significant research design issues, it is not recommended PROACTIVE be evaluated in a large-scale randomised controlled trial. Further research is required to explore the impact of Active Surveillance on anxiety amongst men with localized prostate cancer managed by Active Surveillance.

Renewed: Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a digital intervention to support quality of life in cancer survivors.

INTRODUCTION: Low quality of life is common in cancer survivors. Increasing physical activity, improving diet, supporting psychological well-being and weight loss can improve quality of life in several cancers and may limit relapse. The aim of the randomised controlled trial outlined in this protocol is to examine whether a digital intervention (Renewed), with or without human support, can improve quality of life in cancer survivors. Renewed provides support for increasing physical activity, managing difficult emotions, eating a healthier diet and weight management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled trial is being conducted comparing usual care, access to Renewed or access to Renewed with brief human support. Cancer survivors who have had colorectal, breast or prostate cancer will be identified and invited through general practice searches and mail-outs. Participants are asked to complete baseline measures immediately after screening and will then be randomised to a study group; this is all completed on the Renewed website. The primary outcome is quality of life measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-c30. Secondary outcomes include anxiety and depression, fear of cancer recurrence, general well-being, enablement and items relating to costs for a health economics analysis. Process measures include perceptions of human support, intervention usage and satisfaction, and adherence to behavioural changes. Qualitative process evaluations will be conducted with patients and healthcare staff providing support. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the NHS Research Ethics Committee (Reference 18/NW/0013). The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and through conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN96374224; Pre-results.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy and occupational therapy versus no therapy in mild to moderate Parkinson's disease: a large pragmatic randomised controlled trial (PD REHAB).

BACKGROUND: Cochrane reviews of physiotherapy (PT) and occupational therapy (OT) for Parkinson's disease found insufficient evidence of effectiveness, but previous trials were methodologically flawed with small sample size and short-term follow-up. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of individualised PT and OT in Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: Large pragmatic randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Thirty-eight neurology and geriatric medicine outpatient clinics in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred and sixty-two patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease reporting limitations in activities of daily living (ADL). INTERVENTION: Patients were randomised online to either both PT and OT NHS services (n = 381) or no therapy (n = 381). Therapy incorporated a patient-centred approach with individual assessment and goal setting. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was instrumental ADL measured by the patient-completed Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) scale at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life [Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (PDQ-39); European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D)], adverse events, resource use and carer quality of life (Short Form questionnaire-12 items). Outcomes were assessed before randomisation and at 3, 9 and 15 months after randomisation. RESULTS: Data from 92% of the participants in each group were available at the primary time point of 3 months, but there was no difference in NEADL total score [difference 0.5 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.4] or PDQ-39 summary index (0.007 points, 95% CI -1.5 to 1.5; p = 1.0) between groups. The EQ-5D quotient was of borderline significance in favour of therapy (-0.03, 95% CI -0.07 to -0.002; p = 0.04). Contact time with therapists was for a median of four visits of 58 minutes each over 8 weeks (mean dose 232 minutes). Repeated measures analysis including all time points showed no difference in NEADL total score, but PDQ-39 summary index (curves diverging at 1.6 points per annum, 95% CI 0.47 to 2.62; p = 0.005) and EQ-5D quotient (0.02, 95% CI 0.00007 to 0.03; p = 0.04) showed significant but small differences in favour of the therapy arm. Cost-effective analysis showed that therapy was associated with a slight but not significant gain in quality-adjusted life-years (0.027, 95% CI -0.010 to 0.065) at a small incremental cost (£164, 95% CI -£141 to £468), resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of under £4000 (£3493, 95% -£169,371 to £176,358). There was no difference in adverse events or serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: NHS PT and OT did not produce immediate or long-term clinically meaningful improvements in ADL or quality of life in patients with mild to moderate Parkinson's disease. This evidence does not support the use of low-dose, patient-centred, goal-directed PT and OT in patients in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. Future research should include the development and testing of more structured and intensive PT and OT programmes in patients with all stages of Parkinson's disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17452402. FUNDING: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, received support from the UK Department of Health up to March 2012. Catherine Sackley was supported by a NIHR senior investigator award, Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East of England and West Midlands Strategic Health Authority Clinical Academic Training award.

Computed tomographic colonography compared with colonoscopy or barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer in older symptomatic patients: two multicentre randomised trials with economic evaluation (the SIGGAR trials).

BACKGROUND: Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is a relatively new diagnostic test that may be superior to existing alternatives to investigate the large bowel. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic efficacy, acceptability, safety and cost-effectiveness of CTC with barium enema (BE) or colonoscopy. DESIGN: Parallel randomised trials: BE compared with CTC and colonoscopy compared with CTC (randomisation 2 : 1, respectively). SETTING: A total of 21 NHS hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 55 years with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (CRC). INTERVENTIONS: CTC, BE and colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For the trial of CTC compared with BE, the primary outcome was the detection rate of CRC and large polyps (≥ 10 mm), with the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation as a secondary outcome. For the trial of CTC compared with colonoscopy, the primary outcome was the proportion of patients referred for additional colonic investigation, with the detection rate of CRC and large polyps as a secondary outcome. Secondary outcomes for both trials were miss rates for cancer (via registry data), all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, patient acceptability, extracolonic pathology and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 8484 patients were registered and 5384 were randomised and analysed (BE trial: 2527 BE, 1277 CTC; colonoscopy trial: 1047 colonoscopy, 533 CTC). Detection rates in the BE trial were 7.3% (93/1277) for CTC, compared with 5.6% (141/2527) for BE (p = 0.0390). The difference was due to better detection of large polyps by CTC (3.6% vs. 2.2%; p = 0.0098), with no significant difference for cancer (3.7% vs. 3.4%; p = 0.66). Significantly more patients having CTC underwent additional investigation (23.5% vs. 18.3%; p = 0.0003). At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for CRC was 6.7% for CTC (three missed cancers) and 14.1% for BE (12 missed cancers). Significantly more patients randomised to CTC than to colonoscopy underwent additional investigation (30% vs. 8.2%; p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in detection rates for cancer or large polyps (10.7% for CTC vs. 11.4% for colonoscopy; p = 0.69), with no difference when cancers (p = 0.94) and large polyps (p = 0.53) were analysed separately. At the 3-year follow-up, the miss rate for cancer was nil for colonoscopy and 3.4% for CTC (one missed cancer). Adverse events were uncommon for all procedures. In 1042 of 1748 (59.6%) CTC examinations, at least one extracolonic finding was reported, and this proportion increased with age (p < 0.0001). A total of 149 patients (8.5%) were subsequently investigated, and extracolonic neoplasia was diagnosed in 79 patients (4.5%) and malignancy in 29 (1.7%). In the short term, CTC was significantly more acceptable to patients than BE or colonoscopy. Total costs for CTC and colonoscopy were finely balanced, but CTC was associated with higher health-care costs than BE. The cost per large polyp or cancer detected was £4235 (95% confidence interval £395 to £9656). CONCLUSIONS: CTC is superior to BE for detection of cancers and large polyps in symptomatic patients. CTC and colonoscopy detect a similar proportion of large polyps and cancers and their costs are also similar. CTC precipitates significantly more additional investigations than either BE or colonoscopy, and evidence-based referral criteria are needed. Further work is recommended to clarify the extent to which patients initially referred for colonoscopy or BE undergo subsequent abdominopelvic imaging, for example by computed tomography, which will have a significant impact on health economic estimates. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95152621.

Identification of Extracolonic Pathologies by Computed Tomographic Colonography in Colorectal Cancer Symptomatic Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer may originate outside the colorectum. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is used to examine the colorectum and abdominopelvic organs simultaneously. We performed a prospective randomized controlled trial to quantify the frequency, nature, and consequences of extracolonic findings. METHODS: We studied 5384 patients from 21 UK National Health Service hospitals referred by their family doctor for the investigation of colorectal cancer symptoms from March 2004 through December 2007. The patients were assigned randomly to groups that received the requested test (barium enema or colonoscopy, n = 3574) or CTC (n = 1810). We determined the frequency and nature of extracolonic findings, subsequent investigations, ultimate diagnosis, and extracolonic cancer diagnoses 1 and 3 years after testing patients without colorectal cancer. RESULTS: Extracolonic pathologies were detected in 959 patients by CTC (58.7%), in 42 patients by barium enema analysis (1.9%), and in no patients by colonoscopy. Extracolonic findings were investigated in 142 patients (14.2%) and a diagnosis was made for 126 patients (88.1%). Symptoms were explained by extracolonic findings in 4 patients analyzed by barium enema (0.2%) and in 33 patients analyzed by CTC (2.8%). CTC identified 72 extracolonic neoplasms, however, barium enema analysis found only 3 (colonoscopy found none). Overall, CTC diagnosed extracolonic neoplasms in 72 of 1634 patients (4.4%); 26 of these were malignant (1.6%). There were significantly more extracolonic malignancies detected than expected 1 year after examination, but these did not differ between patients evaluated by CTC (22.2/1000 person-years), barium enema (26.5/1000 person-years; P = .43), or colonoscopy (32.0/1000 person-years; P = .88). CONCLUSIONS: More than half of the patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer are found to have extracolonic pathologies by CTC analysis. However, the proportion of patients found to have extracolonic malignancies after 1 year of CTC examination is not significantly greater than after barium enema or colonoscopy examinations. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials no: 95152621.isrctn.com.

Detection of extracolonic pathologic findings with CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment of perceived benefits versus harms.

PURPOSE: To determine the maximum rate of false-positive diagnoses that patients and health care professionals were willing to accept in exchange for detection of extracolonic malignancy by using computed tomographic (CT) colonography for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After obtaining ethical approval and informed consent, 52 patients and 50 health care professionals undertook two discrete choice experiments where they chose between unrestricted CT colonography that examined intra- and extracolonic organs or CT colonography restricted to the colon, across different scenarios. The first experiment detected one extracolonic malignancy per 600 cases with a false-positive rate varying across scenarios from 0% to 99.8%. One experiment examined radiologic follow-up generated by false-positive diagnoses while the other examined invasive follow-up. Intracolonic performance was identical for both tests. The median tipping point (maximum acceptable false-positive rate for extracolonic findings) was calculated overall and for both groups by bootstrap analysis. RESULTS: The median tipping point for radiologic follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate greater than 99.8% (interquartile ratio [IQR], 10 to >99.8%). Participants would tolerate at least a 99.8% rate of unnecessary radiologic tests to detect an additional extracolonic malignancy. The median tipping-point for invasive follow-up occurred at a false-positive rate of 10% (IQR, 2 to >99.8%). Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than for health care professionals for both experiments (>99.8 vs 40% for radiologic follow-up and >99.8 vs 5% for invasive follow-up, both P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients and health care professionals are willing to tolerate high rates of false-positive diagnoses with CT colonography in exchange for diagnosis of extracolonic malignancy. The actual specificity of screening CT colonography for extracolonic findings in clinical practice is likely to be highly acceptable to both patients and health care professionals. Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Quantifying public preferences for different bowel preparation options prior to screening CT colonography: a discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVES: CT colonography (CTC) may be an acceptable test for colorectal cancer screening but bowel preparation can be a barrier to uptake. This study tested the hypothesis that prospective screening invitees would prefer full-laxative preparation with higher sensitivity and specificity for polyps, despite greater burden, over less burdensome reduced-laxative or non-laxative alternatives with lower sensitivity and specificity. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. SETTING: Online, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: 2819 adults (45-54 years) from the UK responded to an online invitation to take part in a cancer screening study. Quota sampling ensured that the sample reflected key demographics of the target population and had no relevant bowel disease or medical qualifications. The analysis comprised 607 participants. INTERVENTIONS: After receiving information about screening and CTC, participants completed 3-4 choice scenarios. Scenarios showed two hypothetical forms of CTC with different permutations of three attributes: preparation, sensitivity and specificity for polyps. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants considered the trade-offs in each scenario and stated their preferred test (or chose neither). RESULTS: Preparation and sensitivity for polyps were both significant predictors of preferences (coefficients: -3.834 to -6.346 for preparation, 0.207-0.257 for sensitivity; p<0.0005). These attributes predicted preferences to a similar extent. Realistic specificity values were non-significant (-0.002 to 0.025; p=0.953). Contrary to our hypothesis, probabilities of selecting tests were similar for realistic forms of full-laxative, reduced-laxative and non-laxative preparations (0.362-0.421). However, they were substantially higher for hypothetical improved forms of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparations with better sensitivity for polyps (0.584-0.837). CONCLUSIONS: Uptake of CTC following non-laxative or reduced-laxative preparations is unlikely to be greater than following full-laxative preparation as perceived gains from reduced burden may be diminished by reduced sensitivity. However, both attributes are important so a more sensitive form of reduced-laxative or non-laxative preparation might improve uptake substantially.

Patients' & healthcare professionals' values regarding true- & false-positive diagnosis when colorectal cancer screening by CT colonography: discrete choice experiment.

PURPOSE: To establish the relative weighting given by patients and healthcare professionals to gains in diagnostic sensitivity versus loss of specificity when using CT colonography (CTC) for colorectal cancer screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following ethical approval and informed consent, 75 patients and 50 healthcare professionals undertook a discrete choice experiment in which they chose between "standard" CTC and "enhanced" CTC that raised diagnostic sensitivity 10% for either cancer or polyps in exchange for varying levels of specificity. We established the relative increase in false-positive diagnoses participants traded for an increase in true-positive diagnoses. RESULTS: Data from 122 participants were analysed. There were 30 (25%) non-traders for the cancer scenario and 20 (16%) for the polyp scenario. For cancer, the 10% gain in sensitivity was traded up to a median 45% (IQR 25 to >85) drop in specificity, equating to 2250 (IQR 1250 to >4250) additional false-positives per additional true-positive cancer, at 0.2% prevalence. For polyps, the figure was 15% (IQR 7.5 to 55), equating to 6 (IQR 3 to 22) additional false-positives per additional true-positive polyp, at 25% prevalence. Tipping points were significantly higher for patients than professionals for both cancer (85 vs 25, p<0.001) and polyps (55 vs 15, p<0.001). Patients were willing to pay significantly more for increased sensitivity for cancer (p = 0.021). CONCLUSION: When screening for colorectal cancer, patients and professionals believe gains in true-positive diagnoses are worth much more than the negative consequences of a corresponding rise in false-positives. Evaluation of screening tests should account for this.

Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: a review of conjoint analysis studies.

A wide range of screening technologies is available for colorectal cancer screening. There is demand to discover public preferences for these tests on the rationale that tailoring screening to preferences may improve uptake. This review describes a type of study (conjoint analysis) used to assess people's preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and critically evaluates research quality using a recently published set of guidelines. Most primary studies assessed preferences for colonoscopy and fecal occult blood testing but newer technologies (e.g., capsule endoscopy) have not yet been evaluated. Although studies often adhered to guidelines, there was limited correspondence between stated preferences and actual screening behavior. Future research should investigate how studies can go beyond the guidelines in order to improve this and also explore how test preferences may differ by important population subgroups.

Computed tomographic colonography versus barium enema for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Barium enema (BE) is widely available for diagnosis of colorectal cancer despite concerns about its accuracy and acceptability. Computed tomographic colonography (CTC) might be a more sensitive and acceptable alternative. We aimed to compare CTC and BE for diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for radiological investigation of the colon. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to BE or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-diagnosis of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 3838 patients were randomly assigned to receive either BE (n=2553) or CTC (n=1285). 34 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 2527 assigned to BE and 1277 assigned to CTC. The detection rate of colorectal cancer or large polyps was significantly higher in patients assigned to CTC than in those assigned to BE (93 [7.3%] of 1277 vs 141 [5.6%] of 2527, relative risk 1.31, 95% CI 1.01-1.68; p=0.0390). CTC missed three of 45 colorectal cancers and BE missed 12 of 85. The rate of additional colonic investigation was higher after CTC than after BE (283 [23.5%] of 1206 CTC patients had additional investigation vs 422 [18.3%] of 2300 BE patients; p=0.0003), due mainly to a higher polyp detection rate. Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION: CTC is a more sensitive test than BE. Our results suggest that CTC should be the preferred radiological test for patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Computed tomographic colonography versus colonoscopy for investigation of patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer (SIGGAR): a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is the gold-standard test for investigation of symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer; computed tomographic colonography (CTC) is an alternative, less invasive test. However, additional investigation after CTC is needed to confirm suspected colonic lesions, and this is an important factor in establishing the feasibility of CTC as an alternative to colonoscopy. We aimed to compare rates of additional colonic investigation after CTC or colonoscopy for detection of colorectal cancer or large (≥10 mm) polyps in symptomatic patients in clinical practice. METHODS: This pragmatic multicentre randomised trial recruited patients with symptoms suggestive of colorectal cancer from 21 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were aged 55 years or older and regarded by their referring clinician as suitable for colonoscopy. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to colonoscopy or CTC by computer-generated random numbers, in blocks of six, stratified by trial centre and sex. We analysed the primary outcome-the rate of additional colonic investigation-by intention to treat. The trial is an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number 95152621. FINDINGS: 1610 patients were randomly assigned to receive either colonoscopy (n=1072) or CTC (n=538). 30 patients withdrew consent, leaving for analysis 1047 assigned to colonoscopy and 533 assigned to CTC. 160 (30.0%) patients in the CTC group had additional colonic investigation compared with 86 (8.2%) in the colonoscopy group (relative risk 3.65, 95% CI 2.87-4.65; p<0.0001). Almost half the referrals after CTC were for small (<10 mm) polyps or clinical uncertainty, with low predictive value for large polyps or cancer. Detection rates of colorectal cancer or large polyps in the trial cohort were 11% for both procedures. CTC missed 1 of 29 colorectal cancers and colonoscopy missed none (of 55). Serious adverse events were rare. INTERPRETATION: Guidelines are needed to reduce the referral rate after CTC. For most patients, however, CTC provides a similarly sensitive, less invasive alternative to colonoscopy. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme, NIHR Biomedical Research Centres funding scheme, Cancer Research UK, EPSRC Multidisciplinary Assessment of Technology Centre for Healthcare, and NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care.

Evaluation of a predevelopment service delivery intervention: an application to improve clinical handovers.

BACKGROUND: We developed a method to estimate the expected cost-effectiveness of a service intervention at the design stage and 'road-tested' the method on an intervention to improve patient handover of care between hospital and community. METHOD: The development of a nine-step evaluation framework: 1. Identification of multiple endpoints and arranging them into manageable groups; 2. Estimation of baseline overall and preventable risk; 3. Bayesian elicitation of expected effectiveness of the planned intervention; 4. Assigning utilities to groups of endpoints; 5. Costing the intervention; 6. Estimating health service costs associated with preventable adverse events; 7. Calculating health benefits; 8. Cost-effectiveness calculation; 9. Sensitivity and headroom analysis. RESULTS: Literature review suggested that adverse events follow 19% of patient discharges, and that one-third are preventable by improved handover (ie, 6.3% of all discharges). The intervention to improve handover would reduce the incidence of adverse events by 21% (ie, from 6.3% to 4.7%) according to the elicitation exercise. Potentially preventable adverse events were classified by severity and duration. Utilities were assigned to each category of adverse event. The costs associated with each category of event were obtained from the literature. The unit cost of the intervention was €16.6, which would yield a Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) gain per discharge of 0.010. The resulting cost saving was €14.3 per discharge. The intervention is cost-effective at approximately €214 per QALY under the base case, and remains cost-effective while the effectiveness is greater than 1.6%. CONCLUSIONS: We offer a usable framework to assist in ex ante health economic evaluations of health service interventions.