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.

Capecitabine compared with observation in resected biliary tract cancer (BILCAP): a randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND: Despite improvements in multidisciplinary management, patients with biliary tract cancer have a poor outcome. Only 20% of patients are eligible for surgical resection with curative intent, with 5-year overall survival of less than 10% for all patients. To our knowledge, no studies have described a benefit of adjuvant therapy. We aimed to determine whether adjuvant capecitabine improved overall survival compared with observation following surgery for biliary tract cancer. METHODS: This randomised, controlled, multicentre, phase 3 study was done across 44 specialist hepatopancreatobiliary centres in the UK. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older and had histologically confirmed cholangiocarcinoma or muscle-invasive gallbladder cancer who had undergone a macroscopically complete resection (which includes liver resection, pancreatic resection, or, less commonly, both) with curative intent, and an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of less than 2. Patients who had not completely recovered from previous surgery or who had previous chemotherapy or radiotherapy for biliary tract cancer were also excluded. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive oral capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14 of a 21-day cycle, for eight cycles) or observation commencing within 16 weeks of surgery. Treatment was not masked, and allocation concealment was achieved with a computerised minimisation algorithm that stratified patients by surgical centre, site of disease, resection status, and performance status. The primary outcome was overall survival. As prespecified, analyses were done by intention to treat and per protocol. This study is registered with EudraCT, number 2005-003318-13. FINDINGS: Between March 15, 2006, and Dec 4, 2014, 447 patients were enrolled; 223 patients with biliary tract cancer resected with curative intent were randomly assigned to the capecitabine group and 224 to the observation group. The data cutoff for this analysis was March 6, 2017. The median follow-up for all patients was 60 months (IQR 37-60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median overall survival was 51·1 months (95% CI 34·6-59·1) in the capecitabine group compared with 36·4 months (29·7-44·5) in the observation group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·63-1·04; p=0·097). In a protocol-specified sensitivity analysis, adjusting for minimisation factors and nodal status, grade, and gender, the overall survival HR was 0·71 (95% CI 0·55-0·92; p=0·010). In the prespecified per-protocol analysis (210 patients in the capecitabine group and 220 in the observation group), median overall survival was 53 months (95% CI 40 to not reached) in the capecitabine group and 36 months (30-44) in the observation group (adjusted HR 0·75, 95% CI 0·58-0·97; p=0·028). In the intention-to-treat analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 24·4 months (95% CI 18·6-35·9) in the capecitabine group and 17·5 months (12·0-23·8) in the observation group. In the per-protocol analysis, median recurrence-free survival was 25·9 months (95% CI 19·8-46·3) in the capecitabine group and 17·4 months (12·0-23·7) in the observation group. Adverse events were measured in the capecitabine group only, and of the 213 patients who received at least one cycle, 94 (44%) had at least one grade 3 toxicity, the most frequent of which were hand-foot syndrome in 43 (20%) patients, diarrhoea in 16 (8%) patients, and fatigue in 16 (8%) patients. One (<1%) patient had grade 4 cardiac ischaemia or infarction. Serious adverse events were observed in 47 (21%) of 223 patients in the capecitabine group and 22 (10%) of 224 patients in the observation group. No deaths were deemed to be treatment related. INTERPRETATION: Although this study did not meet its primary endpoint of improving overall survival in the intention-to-treat population, the prespecified sensitivity and per-protocol analyses suggest that capecitabine can improve overall survival in patients with resected biliary tract cancer when used as adjuvant chemotherapy following surgery and could be considered as standard of care. Furthermore, the safety profile is manageable, supporting the use of capecitabine in this setting. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK and Roche.

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.

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.

Single mini-incision total hip replacement for the management of arthritic disease of the hip: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Mini-incision total hip replacement continues the current trend in orthopaedics and other specialties toward smaller-incision surgery. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness and safety of single mini-incision compared with standard-incision total hip replacement for treatment of arthritis of the hip. METHODS: We conducted an electronic literature search for relevant studies published in any language up to March 2010. Key conference proceedings and national orthopaedic registries were searched, professional organizations and implant manufacturers were approached, and reference lists from included studies were screened. We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials assessing single mini-incision surgery, defined as an incision of ≤ 10 cm, compared with standard primary total hip replacement. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Fifteen randomized and five quasi-randomized controlled trials, involving 1857 participants, were eligible. Included trials were of mixed methodological quality, with the sample size ranging from twenty to 219. Mean follow-up periods were short, ranging from six weeks to three years. Compared with standard total hip replacement, mini-incision procedures may have small perioperative advantages in terms of less blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter inpatient stay, but the differences were not clinically important. Few complications were reported, and the complication rate did not differ significantly between groups. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any major difference in the short-term revision rate, and confidence intervals for surrogate measures for long-term outcome were broad enough to include clinically important differences in favor of either approach. CONCLUSIONS: Although there were marginal short-term advantages and disadvantages for each of the surgical techniques, there was no strong evidence either for or against mini-incision compared with standard-incision total hip replacement. Importantly, evidence on longer-term performance, especially the risk of revision arthroplasty, for mini-incision hip arthroplasty is very limited.

[Halophilous microbial groups in saline lake of Qinghai and the growth characteristics and anti-microbial and anti-tumor activities of F16].

A total of forty-five halophilous microorganisms were isolated from the sediment of saline lake in Qinghai Province, among which, filamentous fungus F16 showed the highest activity of anti-microorganism and anti-tumor. The ethyl acetate extract of F16 culture filtrate showed a strong cytotoxicity, and could inhibit the growth of four kinds of bacteria, especially Escherichia coli. When the concentration of the crude extract was 50 microg x ml(-1), the inhibition rate to liver cancer cell BEL7402 reached 76. 91%. The optimal temperature for F16 growth was 15 degrees C , and the increase of salt concentration in media would inhibit its growth. When the concentration of salt surpassed 15% , F16 could not survive. F16 grew well when the pH value ranged from 5 to 9.