Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. METHODS: A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. RESULTS: Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.

3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with high-risk stage II and III colorectal cancer: 3-year follow-up of the SCOT non-inferiority RCT.

BACKGROUND: Oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy administered over 6 months is the standard adjuvant regimen for patients with high-risk stage II or III colorectal cancer. However, the regimen is associated with cumulative toxicity, characterised by chronic and often irreversible neuropathy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of 3-month versus 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy for colorectal cancer and to compare the toxicity, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness of the durations. DESIGN: An international, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, Phase III, parallel-group trial. SETTING: A total of 244 oncology clinics from six countries: UK (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland), Denmark, Spain, Sweden, Australia and New Zealand. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years who had undergone curative resection for high-risk stage II or III adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum. INTERVENTIONS: The adjuvant treatment regimen was either oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil or oxaliplatin and capecitabine, randomised to be administered over 3 or 6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was disease-free survival. Overall survival, adverse events, neuropathy and health-related quality of life were also assessed. The main cost categories were chemotherapy treatment and hospitalisation. Cost-effectiveness was assessed through incremental cost comparisons and quality-adjusted life-year gains between the options and was reported as net monetary benefit using a willingness-to-pay threshold of £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year per patient. RESULTS: Recruitment is closed. In total, 6088 patients were randomised (3044 per group) between 27 March 2008 and 29 November 2013, with 6065 included in the intention-to-treat analyses (3-month analysis, n = 3035; 6-month analysis, n = 3030). Follow-up for the primary analysis is complete. The 3-year disease-free survival rate in the 3-month treatment group was 76.7% (standard error 0.8%) and in the 6-month treatment group was 77.1% (standard error 0.8%), equating to a hazard ratio of 1.006 (95% confidence interval 0.909 to 1.114; p-value for non-inferiority = 0.012), confirming non-inferiority for 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy. Frequent adverse events (alopecia, anaemia, anorexia, diarrhoea, fatigue, hand-foot syndrome, mucositis, sensory neuropathy, neutropenia, pain, rash, altered taste, thrombocytopenia and watery eye) showed a significant increase in grade with 6-month duration; the greatest difference was for sensory neuropathy (grade ≥ 3 was 4% for 3-month vs.16% for 6-month duration), for which a higher rate of neuropathy was seen for the 6-month treatment group from month 4 to ≥ 5 years (p < 0.001). Quality-of-life scores were better in the 3-month treatment group over months 4-6. A cost-effectiveness analysis showed 3-month treatment to cost £4881 less over the 8-year analysis period, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £7246 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The study achieved its primary end point, showing that 3-month oxaliplatin-containing adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to 6 months of the same regimen; 3-month treatment showed a better safety profile and cost less. For future work, further follow-up will refine long-term estimates of the duration effect on disease-free survival and overall survival. The health economic analysis will be updated to include long-term extrapolation for subgroups. We expect these analyses to be available in 2019-20. The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study translational samples may allow the identification of patients who would benefit from longer treatment based on the molecular characteristics of their disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59757862 and EudraCT 2007-003957-10. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 64. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This research was supported by the Medical Research Council (transferred to NIHR Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre - Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; grant reference G0601705), the Swedish Cancer Society and Cancer Research UK Core Clinical Trials Unit Funding (funding reference C6716/A9894).

Patients diagnosed with bowel cancer are likely to have surgery to remove the tumour. Patients diagnosed with a more advanced stage of the disease are then likely to be offered what is known as adjuvant chemotherapy ­ chemotherapy to kill any cancer cells that have already spread but cannot be seen. Adjuvant chemotherapy is usually given over 6 months using two medicines known as oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine. This chemotherapy has side effects of diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting, and it reduces the numbers of cells in the blood. It can also damage nerves, which causes discomfort, numbness and tingling; in some cases, this can go on for years. These side effects are more likely to develop with longer treatment. This study looked at whether or not shortening the time over which patients were given oxaliplatin and fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy reduced its effectiveness. In this large study of over 6000 patients, half of the patients were allocated by chance to be treated for 3 months and the other half to be treated for 6 months. Reducing the time that patients had chemotherapy from 6 months to 3 months did not make the treatment less effective. When patients treated with chemotherapy over 3 months were compared with those treated over 6 months, 77% of patients in both groups were well with no detectable disease 3 years after surgery. Patients were less likely to get side effects with 3-month chemotherapy. In particular, the chance of persistent long-term nerve damage was lower, resulting in patients with 3-month chemotherapy having better health-related quality of life. Overall, the study showed that 3-month adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with bowel cancer is as effective as 6-month adjuvant chemotherapy and causes fewer side effects.

Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

SCOT: a comparison of cost-effectiveness from a large randomised phase III trial of two durations of adjuvant Oxaliplatin combination chemotherapy for colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The Short Course Oncology Therapy (SCOT) study is an international, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial assessing the efficacy, toxicity, and cost-effectiveness of 3 months (3 M) versus the usually given 6 months (6 M) of adjuvant chemotherapy in colorectal cancer. METHODS: In total, 6088 patients with fully resected high-risk stage II or stage III colorectal cancer were randomised and followed up for 3-8 years. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis from a UK health-care perspective is presented using the resource use data, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), time on treatment (ToT), disease-free survival after treatment (DFS) and overall survival (OS) data. Quality-adjusted partitioned survival analysis and Kaplan-Meier Sample Average Estimator estimated QALYs and costs. Probabilistic sensitivity and subgroup analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: The 3 M arm is less costly (-£4881; 95% CI: -£6269; -£3492) and entails (non-significant) QALY gains (0.08; 95% CI: -0.086; 0.230) due to a better significant quality of life. The net monetary benefit was significantly higher in 3 M under a wide range of monetary values of a QALY. The subgroup analysis found similar results for patients in the CAPOX regimen. However, for the FOLFOX regimen, 3 M had lower QALYs than 6 M (not statistically significant). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, 3 M dominates 6 M with no significant detrimental impact on QALYs. The results provide the economic case that a 3 M treatment strategy should be considered a new standard of care.

Comparing open and minimally invasive surgical procedures for oesophagectomy in the treatment of cancer: the ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) feasibility study and pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6-9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery. OBJECTIVES: The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches. DESIGN: Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work. SETTING: Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. INTERVENTIONS: Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited. RESULTS: During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820. 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. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of esophagectomy for esophageal cancer--the ROMIO (Randomized Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for evidence of the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but randomized controlled trials in surgery are often difficult to conduct. The ROMIO (Randomized Open or Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy) study will establish the feasibility of a main trial which will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive and open surgical procedures for the treatment of esophageal cancer. METHODS/DESIGN: A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), in two centers (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust) will examine numbers of incident and eligible patients who consent to participate in the ROMIO study. Interventions will include esophagectomy by: (1) open gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, (2) laparoscopic gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, and (3) totally minimally invasive surgery (in the Bristol center only). The primary outcomes of the feasibility study will be measures of recruitment, successful development of methods to monitor quality of surgery and fidelity to a surgical protocol, and development of a core outcome set to evaluate esophageal cancer surgery. The study will test patient-reported outcomes measures to assess recovery, methods to blind participants, assessments of surgical morbidity, and methods to capture cost and resource use. ROMIO will integrate methods to monitor and improve recruitment using audio recordings of consultations between recruiting surgeons, nurses, and patients to provide feedback for recruiting staff. DISCUSSION: The ROMIO study aims to establish efficient methods to undertake a main trial of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for esophageal cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The pilot trial has Current Controlled Trials registration number ISRCTN59036820(25/02/2013) at http://www.controlled-trials.com; the ROMIO trial record at that site gives a link to the original version of the study protocol.

The patients' written word: a simple communication aid.

Effective doctor-patient communication is an essential part of good medical practice. Question asking is one way for patients to have greater participation. In this feasibility study, patients were given the opportunity to list questions or discussion topics on a proforma before seeing the doctor in an oncology outpatient clinic. The items listed were reviewed by the clinic doctor. Eighty-eight of 100 patients approached agreed to participate. Biomedical questions (mean 2.0 per patient) predominated over psychosocial ones (mean 0.1 per patient). Possible reasons for this are the study researcher being a doctor, patients attending for test results or that patients consider the format of listing questions on a proforma inappropriate for psychosocial issues. The listing of questions and discussion topics by patients gave the doctor valuable information about the patients' understanding and use of language. While the importance of doctors being adequately trained in communication skills should not be ignored, this simple intervention has potential for improving the outcome of clinic consultations.