The STAMPEDE2 Trial: a Site Survey of Current Patterns of Care, Access to Imaging and Treatment of Metastatic Prostate Cancer.

AIMS: The forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial has three comparisons in metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. We aim to determine clinical practices among STAMPEDE trial investigators for access to imaging and therapeutic choices and explore their interest in participation in STAMPEDE2. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The survey was developed and distributed online to 120 UK STAMPEDE trial sites. Recipients were invited to complete the survey between 16 and 30 May 2022. The survey consisted of 30 questions in five sections on access to stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR), 177lutetium-prostate-specific membrane antigen-617 (177Lu-PSMA-617), choice of systemic therapies and use of positron emission tomography/computerised tomography and whole-body magnetic resonance imaging. RESULTS: From 58/120 (48%) sites, 64 respondents completed the survey: 55/64 (86%) respondents were interested to participate in SABR, 44/64 (69%) in 177Lu-PSMA-617 and 56/64 (87.5%) in niraparib with abiraterone comparisons; 45/64 (70%) respondents had access to bone, spine and lymph node metastases SABR delivery and 7/64 (11%) to 177Lu-PSMA-617. In addition to androgen deprivation therapy, 60/64 (94%) respondents used androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and 46/64 (72%) used docetaxel; 29/64 (45%) respondents would consider triplet therapy with androgen deprivation therapy, androgen receptor signalling inhibitors and docetaxel. Positron emission tomography/computerised tomography was available to 62/64 (97%) respondents and requested by 45/64 (70%) respondents for disease uncertainty on conventional imaging and 39/64 (61%) at disease relapse. Whole-body magnetic resonance imaging was available to 24/64 (38%) respondents and requested by 13/64 (20%) respondents in highly selected patients. In low-volume disease, 38/64 (59%) respondents requested scans at baseline and disease relapse. In high-volume disease, 29/64 (45%) respondents requested scans at baseline, best response (at prostate-specific antigen nadir) and disease relapse; 54/64 (84%) respondents requested computerised tomography and bone scan for best response assessment. CONCLUSION: There is noteworthy disparity in clinical practice across current study sites, however most have expressed an interest in participation in the forthcoming STAMPEDE2 trial.

Nutritional assessment and counselling of tuberculosis patients at primary care in India: do we measure up?

SETTING: Dakshina Kannada District, coastal South India, under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP). OBJECTIVE: To identify the potential and practices at primary health centres (PHCs) for the assessment of nutritional status of patients with tuberculosis (TB), the basic tools used to measure height and weight and the type of nutritional counselling provided. DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was conducted with physical verification of availability of height and weight measuring equipment. Information was collected on the method used by medical officers for assessing nutritional status in PHCs, action taken in case the patient is undernourished and any formal training in nutritional assessment and counselling. RESULTS: Of 37 PHCs assessed, weighing machines were available in all and stadiometers in 38%. Medical officers were not calculating body mass index for nutritional assessment even when height and weight were being uniformly measured. Nutritional classification was mostly based on the appearance and physique of the patient. Counselling included advice to take milk, eggs and protein powders with efforts to arrange funds from village health, sanitation and nutrition committees. CONCLUSION: There is a need to equip the PHCs and their medical officers with necessary tools and training for nutritional assessment and counselling of patients with tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis infection control measures at health care facilities offering HIV and tuberculosis services in India: A baseline assessment.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is one of world's oldest infectious disease and ranks alongside HIV as leading infectious killer. Tuberculosis infection control especially in HIV and TB care facilities has warranted attention after the recent health care-associated outbreaks in South Africa. The aim of this study was to describe the tuberculosis infection control measures implemented by HIV and TB care facilities in five high HIV burden provinces in India. METHODS: Baseline assessment of 30 high burden Antiretroviral centers and TB facilities was conducted during Oct 2015-Dec 2015 by AIC trained staff using a structured format. RESULTS: Thirty HIV and TB care facilities in five high HIV burden provinces were enrolled. Facility infrastructure and airborne infection control practices were highly varied between facilities. TB screening and fast tracking at ART centers is happening at majority of centers however inadequate TB infection control training, poor compliance to administrative and personal protective measures and lack of mechanism for health care workers surveillance need attention. CONCLUSIONS: Local specific TB infection control interventions to be designed and implemented at HIV and TB care facilities including implementation of administrative, environmental and use of personal protective equipment's with the training of staff members. Health care workers surveillance needs to be prioritized considering the rising instances of tuberculosis among Health care workers.

No socioeconomic inequalities in ovarian cancer survival within two randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is the leading cause of death among cancers of the female genital tract, with poor outcomes despite chemotherapy. There was a persistent socioeconomic gradient in 1-year survival in England and Wales for more than 3 decades (1971-2001). Inequalities in 5-year survival persisted for more than 20 years but have been smaller for women diagnosed around 2000. We explored one possible explanation. METHODS: We analysed data on 1406 women diagnosed with ovarian cancer during 1991-1998 and recruited to one of two randomised clinical trials. In the second International Collaborative Ovarian Neoplasm (ICON2) trial, women diagnosed between 1991 and 1996 were randomised to receive either the three-drug combination cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin and cisplatin (CAP) or single-agent carboplatin given at optimal dose. In the ICON3 trial, women diagnosed during 1995-1998 were randomised to receive either the same treatments as ICON2, or paclitaxel plus carboplatin.Relative survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was estimated for women in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. The excess hazard of death over and above background mortality was estimated by fitting multivariable regression models with Poisson error structure and a dedicated link function in a generalised linear model framework, adjusting for the duration of follow-up and the confounding effects of age, Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage and calendar period. RESULTS: Unlike women with ovarian cancer in the general population, no statistically significant socioeconomic gradient was seen for women with ovarian cancer treated in the two randomised controlled trials. The deprivation gap in 1-year relative survival in the general population was statistically significant at -6.7% (95% CI (-8.1, -5.3)), compared with -3.6% (95% CI (-10.4, +3.2)) in the trial population. CONCLUSIONS: Although ovarian cancer survival is significantly lower among poor women than rich women in England and Wales, there was no evidence of an association between socioeconomic deprivation and survival among women with ovarian cancer who were treated and followed up consistently in two well-conducted randomised controlled trials. We conclude that the persistent socioeconomic gradient in survival among women with ovarian cancer, at least for 1-year survival, may be due to differences in access to treatment and standards of care.

Future research and methodological approaches.

This supplement has explored the evidence for benefits from the participation of healthcare institutions and their patients in clinical research. The questions have been clarified. There is some encouragement that research active healthcare institutions may deliver improved outcomes compared to less research-active or research-inactive institutions but there is a pressing need for further research. In this chapter we explore the methodological challenges to evaluating the impact of the process of clinical research on hospitals and other healthcare organizations. The postulated mechanisms by which benefits may be accrued are important drivers of the types of research needed and these are emphasized. Study designs are explored including formal randomized trials, the stepped wedge randomized design, approaches to the design and analysis of observational studies particularly to examine whether a temporal or spatial relationship exists between changes in research activity and patients' outcomes. It is acknowledged that in most future studies the data available will be cross-sectional and observational, and such studies are susceptible to many types of bias. The importance of identifying and addressing such biases in multivariate analysis is discussed and examples of successful studies are given.

Initial toxicity assessment of ICON6: a randomised trial of cediranib plus chemotherapy in platinum-sensitive relapsed ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cediranib is a potent oral vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) signalling inhibitor with activity against all three VEGF receptors. The International Collaboration for Ovarian Neoplasia 6 (ICON6) trial was initiated based on evidence of single-agent activity in ovarian cancer with acceptable toxicity. METHODS: The ICON6 trial is a 3-arm, 3-stage, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in first relapse of platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer. Patients are randomised (2 : 3 : 3) to receive six cycles of carboplatin (AUC5/6) plus paclitaxel (175 mg m(-2)) with either placebo (reference), cediranib 20 mg per day, followed by placebo (concurrent), or cediranib 20 mg per day, followed by cediranib (concurrent plus maintenance). Cediranib or placebo was continued for 18 months or until disease progression. The primary outcome measure for stage I was safety, and the blinded results are presented here. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included in the stage I analysis. A total of 53 patients had received three cycles of chemotherapy and 42 patients had completed six cycles. In all, 19 out of 60 patients discontinued cediranib or placebo during chemotherapy because of adverse events/intercurrent illness (n=9); disease progression (n=1); death (n=3); patient decision (n=1); administrative reasons (n=1); and multiple reasons (n=4). Grade 3 and 4 toxicity was experienced by 30 (50%) and 3 (5%) patients, respectively. No gastrointestinal perforations were observed. CONCLUSION: The addition of cediranib to platinum-based chemotherapy is sufficiently well tolerated to expand the ICON6 trial and progress to stage II.

A critical review of methods for the assessment of patient-level interactions in individual participant data meta-analysis of randomized trials, and guidance for practitioners.

OBJECTIVE: Treatments may be more effective in some patients than others, and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials provides perhaps the best method of investigating treatment-covariate interactions. Various methods are used; we provide a comprehensive critique and develop guidance on method selection. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched MEDLINE to identify all frequentist methods and appraised them for simplicity, risk of bias, and power. IPD data sets were reanalyzed. RESULTS: Four methodological categories were identified: PWT: pooling of within-trial covariate interactions; OSM: "one-stage" model with a treatment-covariate interaction term; TDCS: testing for difference between covariate subgroups in their pooled treatment effects; and CWA: combining PWT with meta-regression. Distinguishing across- and within-trial information is important, as the former may be subject to ecological bias. A strategy is proposed for method selection in different circumstances; PWT or CWA are natural first steps. The OSM method allows for more complex analyses; TDCS should be avoided. Our reanalysis shows that different methods can lead to substantively different findings. CONCLUSION: The choice of method for investigating interactions in IPD meta-analysis is driven mainly by whether across-trial information is considered for inclusion, a decision, which depends on balancing possible improvement in power with an increased risk of bias.

No socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer survival within a randomised clinical trial.

There is strong evidence that colorectal cancer survival differs between socioeconomic groups. We analysed data on 2481 patients diagnosed during 1989-1997 and recruited to a randomised controlled clinical trial (AXIS, ISRCTN32414363) of chemotherapy and radiotherapy for colorectal cancer. Crude and relative survival at 1 and 5 years was estimated in five categories of socioeconomic deprivation. Multiple imputation was used to account for missing data on tumour stage. A multivariable fractional polynomial model was fitted to estimate the excess hazard of death in each deprivation category, adjusting for the confounding effects of age, stage, cancer site (colon, rectum) and sex, using generalised linear models. Relative survival in the trial patients was higher than in the general population of England and Wales. The socioeconomic gradient in survival was much smaller than that seen for colorectal cancer patients in the general population, both at 1 year -3.2% (95% CI -7.3 to 1.0%, P=0.14) and at 5 years -1.7% (95% CI -8.3 to 4.9%, P=0.61). Given equal treatment, colorectal cancer survival in England and Wales does not appear to depend on socioeconomic status, suggesting that the socioeconomic gradient in survival in the general population could well be due to health-care system factors.

Assessment of quality of life in the supportive care setting of the big lung trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.

PURPOSE: The Big Lung Trial (BLT) was a large, pragmatic trial to evaluate the addition of chemotherapy to primary treatment (ie, surgery, radical radiotherapy, or supportive care) in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). In the supportive care group, there was a small but significant survival benefit in patients treated with chemotherapy compared with supportive care alone (no chemotherapy). A substudy was undertaken to evaluate the quality of life (QoL) implications of the treatment options. QoL was assessed using European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires C30 (QLQ-C30) and LC17, and daily diary cards. PATIENTS AND METHODS: EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC17 were collected at 0, 6 to 8, 12, 18, and 24 weeks. Diary cards were completed during the first 12 weeks of the study. The primary end point was global QoL at 12 weeks. RESULTS: A total of 273 patients were randomly assigned: 138 to no chemotherapy and 135 to chemotherapy. There was no evidence of a large detrimental effect on QoL of chemotherapy. No statistically significant differences in global QoL or physical/emotional functioning, fatigue and dyspnea, and pain were detected at 12 weeks. Higher rates of palliative radiotherapy in the no chemotherapy arm may have lessened differences in QoL. Global QoL, role functioning, fatigue, appetite loss, and constipation were prognostic indicators of survival at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: There were no important adverse effects of chemotherapy on QoL.

Chemotherapy versus supportive care in advanced non-small cell lung cancer: improved survival without detriment to quality of life.

BACKGROUND: In 1995 a meta-analysis of randomised trials investigating the value of adding chemotherapy to primary treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) suggested a small survival benefit for cisplatin-based chemotherapy in each of the primary treatment settings. However, the meta-analysis included many small trials and trials with differing eligibility criteria and chemotherapy regimens. METHODS: The aim of the Big Lung Trial was to confirm the survival benefits seen in the meta-analysis and to assess quality of life and cost in the supportive care setting. A total of 725 patients were randomised to receive supportive care alone (n = 361) or supportive care plus cisplatin-based chemotherapy (n = 364). RESULTS: 65% of patients allocated chemotherapy (C) received all three cycles of treatment and a further 27% received one or two cycles. 74% of patients allocated no chemotherapy (NoC) received thoracic radiotherapy compared with 47% of the C group. Patients allocated C had a significantly better survival than those allocated NoC: HR 0.77 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.89, p = 0.0006), median survival 8.0 months for the C group v 5.7 months for the NoC group, a difference of 9 weeks. There were 19 (5%) treatment related deaths in the C group. There was no evidence that any subgroup benefited more or less from chemotherapy. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in terms of the pre-defined primary and secondary quality of life end points, although large negative effects of chemotherapy were ruled out. The regimens used proved to be cost effective, the extra cost of chemotherapy being offset by longer survival. CONCLUSIONS: The survival benefit seen in this trial was entirely consistent with the NSCLC meta-analysis and subsequent similarly designed large trials. The information on quality of life and cost should enable patients and their clinicians to make more informed treatment choices.

Is double data entry necessary? The CHART trials. CHART Steering Committee. Continuous, Hyperfractionated, Accelerated Radiotherapy.

There is some controversy over the need for double data entry in clinical trials. In particular, does the number and types of errors identified with this approach justify the extra effort involved? We report the results of a study carried out to address this question. Our main outcome measure was the frequency and types of errors involved in the entry of data for the CHART (continuous, hyperfractionated, accelerated radiotherapy) trials. Data were reentered for a sample of 44 patients by a data manager other than the one making the initial entry. The second entry was then compared with the first entry. The error rate for the two entries combined was 14 per 10,000 data items (fields) (95% confidence interval 10, 19). The error rate for the initial entry alone was 15 per 10,000 fields (95% confidence interval 9.5, 22), and the vital/important error rate (defined as any error on a principal outcome measure or a major error on any other endpoint or variable) was 2.5 per 10,000 fields (95% confidence interval 0.68, 6.4). On this evidence double data entry is not performed for the CHART trials.

Proposal for changes in cystoscopic follow up of patients with bladder cancer and adjuvant intravesical chemotherapy.

A famous surgeon observed that the most important instrument for the management of superficial bladder cancer was a typewriter because it facilitated the organisation of the regular follow up examinations that are so important in controlling this disease. Cystoscopic follow up must be lifelong, and the cost, in the broadest sense, to both patient and health service is considerable. A recent study has suggested that the conventional frequency of bladder examinations may not be necessary and that most patients could be spared many cystoscopies. Instillation of cytotoxic drugs in the bladder has been shown to reduce the recurrence of tumours destroyed endoscopically and the development of new tumours elsewhere in the bladder. Because intravesical instillations are inconvenient, expensive, and may be toxic they have been reserved for patients thought to be at greatest risk of recurrence. However, two clinical trials have shown that a single cytotoxic instillation may be beneficial for low risk patients. If this is verified in everyday practice, the routine use of intravesical chemotherapy for all patients at the time of initial treatment could reduce the need for cystoscopies even further. Such changes should improve the quality of life of the 7000 new patients with superficial bladder cancer each year in England and Wales and allow savings to be made in the NHS.