Getting our ducks in a row: The need for data utility comparisons of healthcare systems data for clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Better use of healthcare systems data, collected as part of interactions between patients and the healthcare system, could transform planning and conduct of randomised controlled trials. Multiple challenges to widespread use include whether healthcare systems data captures sufficiently well the data traditionally captured on case report forms. "Data Utility Comparison Studies" (DUCkS) assess the utility of healthcare systems data for RCTs by comparison to data collected by the trial. Despite their importance, there are few published UK examples of DUCkS. METHODS-AND-RESULTS: Building from ongoing and selected recent examples of UK-led DUCkS in the literature, we set out experience-based considerations for the conduct of future DUCkS. Developed through informal iterative discussions in many forums, considerations are offered for planning, protocol development, data, analysis and reporting, with comparisons at "patient-level" or "trial-level", depending on the item of interest and trial status. DISCUSSION: DUCkS could be a valuable tool in assessing where healthcare systems data can be used for trials and in which trial teams can play a leading role. There is a pressing need for trials to be more efficient in their delivery and research waste must be reduced. Trials have been making inconsistent use of healthcare systems data, not least because of an absence of evidence of utility. DUCkS can also help to identify challenges in using healthcare systems data, such as linkage (access and timing) and data quality. We encourage trial teams to incorporate and report DUCkS in trials and funders and data providers to support them.

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials.

Abstract: Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer. Future work: There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology. Trial registration: ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032. Funding: This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001­5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001­11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Co-Creation of Breast Cancer Risk Communication Tools and an Assessment of Risk Factor Awareness: A Qualitative Study of Patients and the Public in India.

BACKGROUND: Low awareness of BC and its associated risk factors causes delays in diagnosis and impacts survival. It is critical to communicate BC risk to patients in a format that they are easily able to understand. Our study aim was to develop easy-to-follow transmedia prototypes to communicate BC risk and evaluate user preferences, alongside exploring awareness of BC and its risk factors. METHODS: Prototypes of transmedia tools for risk communication were developed with multidisciplinary input. A qualitative in-depth online interview study was undertaken using a pre-defined topic guide of BC patients (7), their relatives (6), the general public (6), and health professionals (6). Interviews were analyzed using a thematic approach. FINDINGS: Most participants preferred pictographic representations (frequency format) of lifetime risk and risk factors and storytelling using short animations and comic strips (infographics) for communicating genetic risk and testing: "In a short time, they explained it very well, and I liked it". Suggestions included minimizing technical terminology, decreasing the delivery speed, "two-way dialogue", and using local "language for different locations". There was low awareness of BC, with some understanding of age and hereditary risk factors but limited knowledge of reproductive factors. INTERPRETATION: Our findings support use of multiple context-specific multimedia tools in communicating cancer risk in an easy-to-understand way. The preference for storytelling using animations and infographics is a novel finding and should be more widely explored.

Performance Characteristics of the Ultrasound Strategy during Incidence Screening in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

Randomised controlled trials of ovarian cancer (OC) screening have not yet demonstrated an impact on disease mortality. Meanwhile, the screening data from clinical trials represents a rich resource to understand the performance of modalities used. We report here on incidence screening in the ultrasound arm of UKCTOCS. 44,799 of the 50,639 women who were randomised to annual screening with transvaginal ultrasound attended annual incidence screening between 28 April 2002 and 31 December 2011. Transvaginal ultrasound was used both as the first and the second line test. Participants were followed up through electronic health record linkage and postal questionnaires. Out of 280,534 annual incidence screens, 960 women underwent screen-positive surgery. 113 had ovarian/tubal cancer (80 invasive epithelial). Of the screen-detected invasive epithelial cancers, 37.5% (95% CI: 26.9-49.0) were Stage I/II. An additional 52 (50 invasive epithelial) were diagnosed within one year of their last screen. Of the 50 interval epithelial cancers, 6.0% (95% CI: 1.3-16.5) were Stage I/II. For detection of all ovarian/tubal cancers diagnosed within one year of screen, the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 68.5% (95% CI: 60.8-75.5), 99.7% (95% CI: 99.7-99.7), and 11.8% (95% CI: 9.8-14) respectively. When the analysis was restricted to invasive epithelial cancers, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 61.5% (95% CI: 52.6-69.9); 99.7% (95% CI: 99.7-99.7) and 8.3% (95% CI: 6.7-10.3), with 12 surgeries per screen positive. The low sensitivity coupled with the advanced stage of interval cancers suggests that ultrasound scanning as the first line test might not be suitable for population screening for ovarian cancer. Trial registration: ISRCTN22488978. Registered on 6 April 2000.

The Enhanced Liver Fibrosis test is associated with liver-related outcomes in postmenopausal women with risk factors for liver disease.

BACKGROUND: Chronic liver disease (CLD) is usually asymptomatic but earlier detection is critical to permit life-saving interventions for those at risk due to high alcohol consumption and increased body mass index (BMI). The aim of this study was to estimate the association between the Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test and liver-related events (LRE) and its performance in predicting LRE in postmenopausal women with risk factors in a nested case-control study within the United Kingdom Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). METHODS: In a cohort of 95,126 we performed a case-control study measuring ELF in blinded samples from 173 participants with self-reported high alcohol use and / or BMI ≥25 kg/m2 comprising all 58 cases who developed LRE and 115 controls matched for age, alcohol and BMI who did not develop LRE during median follow-up of 8.5 years. RESULTS: Using Cox regression at an ELF threshold of 10.51 hazard ratios (HR) for LRE were 4.88 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.37-10.03) (unadjusted model) and 4.62 (95% CI 2.12-10.08) (adjusted for deprivation and self-reported hypertension, heart disease, hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes). At a threshold of 9.8 HR for LRE were 2.21 (95% CI 1.22-3.97) (unadjusted model) and 2.18 (95% CI 1.19-4.01) (adjusted). ELF was evaluated as a time dependent variable by generating time-dependent Cox models; HRs at an ELF threshold of 10.51 were 1.94 (95% CI 1.10-3.39) (unadjusted) and 2.05 (95% CI 1.16-3.64) (adjusted) and at a threshold of 9.8 HRs were 1.85 (95% CI 1.09-3.15) (unadjusted) and 1.80 (95% CI 1.04-3.13) (adjusted). Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for recruitment ELF predicting LRE was 0.58 (95% CI 0.49-0.68), and for second subsequent ELF 0.61 (95% CI 0.52-0.71). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the association between ELF and CLD in postmenopausal women with risk factors for liver disease, creating the opportunity to intervene to reduce liver-related mortality and morbidity. Although larger studies are required, these results demonstrate the potential of ELF as a prognostic tool in health checks in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is nested in UKCTOCS. UKCTOCS is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978. Registered 06/04/2000.

The cost-effectiveness of screening for ovarian cancer: results from the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

BACKGROUND: To assess the within-trial cost-effectiveness of an NHS ovarian cancer screening (OCS) programme using data from UKCTOCS and extrapolate results based on average life expectancy. METHODS: Within-trial economic evaluation of no screening (C) vs either (1) an annual OCS programme using transvaginal ultrasound (USS) or (2) an annual ovarian cancer multimodal screening programme with serum CA125 interpreted using a risk algorithm (ROCA) and transvaginal ultrasound as a second-line test (MMS), plus comparison of lifetime extrapolation of the no screening arm and the MMS programme using both a predictive and a Markov model. RESULTS: Using a CA125-ROCA cost of £20, the within-trial results show USS to be strictly dominated by MMS, with the MMS vs C comparison returning an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £91 452 per life year gained (LYG). If the CA125-ROCA unit cost is reduced to £15, the ICER becomes £77 818 per LYG. Predictive extrapolation over the expected lifetime of the UKCTOCS women returns an ICER of £30 033 per LYG, while Markov modelling produces an ICER of £46 922 per QALY. CONCLUSION: Analysis suggests that, after accounting for the lead time required to establish full mortality benefits, a national OCS programme based on the MMS strategy quickly approaches the current NICE thresholds for cost-effectiveness when extrapolated out to lifetime as compared with the within-trial ICER estimates. Whether MMS could be recommended on economic grounds would depend on the confirmation and size of the mortality benefit at the end of an ongoing follow-up of the UKCTOCS cohort.

Long-Term Secondary Care Costs of Endometrial Cancer: A Prospective Cohort Study Nested within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence on the costs of Endometrial Cancer (EC) by stage of disease. We estimated the long-term secondary care costs of EC according to stage at diagnosis in an English population-based cohort. METHODS: Women participating in UKCTOCS and diagnosed with EC following enrolment (2001-2005) and prior to 31st Dec 2009 were identified to have EC through multiple sources. Survival was calculated through data linkage to death registry. Costs estimates were derived from hospital records accessed from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) with additional patient level covariates derived from case notes and patient questionnaires. Missing and censored data was imputed using Multiple Imputation. Regression analysis of cost and survival was undertaken. RESULTS: 491 of 641 women with EC were included. Five year total costs were strongly dependent on stage, ranging from £9,475 (diagnosis at stage IA/IB) to £26,080 (diagnosis at stage III). Stage, grade and BMI were the strongest predictors of costs. The majority of costs for stage I/II EC were incurred in the first six months after diagnosis while for stage III / IV considerable costs accrued after the first six months. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to survival advantages, there are significant cost savings if patients with EC are detected earlier.

Assessment of Multifactor Gene-Environment Interactions and Ovarian Cancer Risk: Candidate Genes, Obesity, and Hormone-Related Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Many epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) risk factors relate to hormone exposure and elevated estrogen levels are associated with obesity in postmenopausal women. Therefore, we hypothesized that gene-environment interactions related to hormone-related risk factors could differ between obese and non-obese women. METHODS: We considered interactions between 11,441 SNPs within 80 candidate genes related to hormone biosynthesis and metabolism and insulin-like growth factors with six hormone-related factors (oral contraceptive use, parity, endometriosis, tubal ligation, hormone replacement therapy, and estrogen use) and assessed whether these interactions differed between obese and non-obese women. Interactions were assessed using logistic regression models and data from 14 case-control studies (6,247 cases; 10,379 controls). Histotype-specific analyses were also completed. RESULTS: SNPs in the following candidate genes showed notable interaction: IGF1R (rs41497346, estrogen plus progesterone hormone therapy, histology = all, P = 4.9 × 10(-6)) and ESR1 (rs12661437, endometriosis, histology = all, P = 1.5 × 10(-5)). The most notable obesity-gene-hormone risk factor interaction was within INSR (rs113759408, parity, histology = endometrioid, P = 8.8 × 10(-6)). CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of assessing multifactor interactions in large genetic epidemiology studies. Follow-up studies are necessary to assess the robustness of our findings for ESR1, CYP11A1, IGF1R, CYP11B1, INSR, and IGFBP2 Future work is needed to develop powerful statistical methods able to detect these complex interactions. IMPACT: Assessment of multifactor interaction is feasible, and, here, suggests that the relationship between genetic variants within candidate genes and hormone-related risk factors may vary EOC susceptibility. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(5); 780-90. ©2016 AACR.

The association between socioeconomic status and tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer: A pooled analysis of 18 case-control studies.

PURPOSE: Socioeconomic status (SES) is a known predictor of survival for several cancers and it has been suggested that SES differences affecting tumour stage at diagnosis may be the most important explanatory factor for this. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated SES differences in tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer. In a pooled analysis, we investigated whether SES as represented by level of education is predictive for advanced tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer, overall and by histotype. The effect of cigarette smoking and body mass index (BMI) on the association was also evaluated. METHODS: From 18 case-control studies, we obtained information on 10,601 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer. Study specific odds ratios (ORs) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) were obtained from logistic regression models and combined into a pooled odds ratio (pOR) using a random effects model. RESULTS: Overall, women who completed ≤high school had an increased risk of advanced tumour stage at diagnosis compared with women who completed >high school (pOR 1.15; 95% CI 1.03-1.28). The risk estimates for the different histotypes of ovarian cancer resembled that observed for ovarian cancers combined but did not reach statistical significance. Our results were unchanged when we included BMI and cigarette smoking. CONCLUSION: Lower level of education was associated with an increased risk of advanced tumour stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The observed socioeconomic difference in stage at diagnosis of ovarian cancer calls for further studies on how to reduce this diagnostic delay.

Socioeconomic indicators of health inequalities and female mortality: a nested cohort study within the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).

BACKGROUND: Evidence is mounting that area-level socioeconomic indicators are important tools for predicting health outcomes. However, few studies have examined these alongside individual-level education. This nested cohort study within the control arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) assesses the association of mutually adjusted individual (education) and area-level (Index of Multiple Deprivation-IMD 2007) socioeconomic status indicators and all-cause female mortality. METHODS: Participants resident in England who had completed both baseline (Wave 1) and follow up (Wave 2) questionnaires were included. Follow-up was through the Health and Social Care Information Centre with deaths censored on 31st December 2012. IMD, education and a range of covariates were explored. Cox regression models adjusted for all covariates were used. Sensitivity analysis using imputation was performed (1) including those with missing data and (2) on the entire cohort who had completed the baseline questionnaire. RESULTS: Of the 54,539 women resident in England who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 questionnaires, 4,510 had missing data. The remaining 50,029 women were included in the primary analysis. Area-level IMD was positively associated with all-cause mortality for the most deprived group compared to the least deprived (HR=1.42, CI=1.14-1.78) after adjusting for all potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with stronger associations in the entire cohort (HR=1.90, CI=1.68-2.16). The less educated an individual, the higher the mortality risk (test for trend p=<0.001). However, the crude effect on mortality of having no formal education compared to college/university education disappeared when adjusted for IMD rank (HR=1.08, CI=0.93-1.26). CONCLUSION: Women living in more deprived areas continue to have higher mortality even in this less deprived cohort and after adjustment for a range of potential confounders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978.