Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) versus standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric origin: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analyses of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

INTRODUCTION: There is uncertainty about whether cytoreductive surgery (CRS)+hyperthermic intraoperative peritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) improves survival and/or quality of life compared with standard of care (SoC) in people with peritoneal metastases who can withstand major surgery. PRIMARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the relative benefits and harms of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC in people with peritoneal metastases from colorectal, ovarian or gastric cancers eligible to undergo CRS+HIPEC by a systematic review and individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. SECONDARY OBJECTIVES: To compare the cost-effectiveness of CRS+HIPEC versus SoC from a National Health Service (NHS) and personal social services perspective using a model-based cost-utility analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a systematic review of literature by updating the searches from MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane library, Science Citation Index as well as trial registers. Two members of our team will independently screen the search results and identify randomised controlled trials comparing CRS+HIPEC versus SoC for inclusion based on full texts for articles shortlisted during screening. We will assess the risk of bias in the trials and obtain data related to baseline prognostic characteristics, details of intervention and control, and outcome data related to overall survival, disease progression, health-related quality of life, treatment related complications and resource utilisation data. Using IPD, we will perform a two-step IPD, that is, calculate the adjusted effect estimate from each included study and then perform a random-effects model meta-analysis. We will perform various subgroup analyses, meta-regression and sensitivity analyses. We will also perform a model-based cost-utility analysis to assess whether CRS+HIPEC is cost-effective in the NHS setting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This project was approved by the UCL Research Ethics Committee (Ethics number: 16023/001). We aim to present the findings at appropriate international meetings and publish the review, irrespective of the findings, in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019130504.

Involvement of consumers in studies run by the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit: results of a survey.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to establish levels of consumer involvement in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), meta-analyses and other studies carried out by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) Clinical Trials Unit across the range of research programs, predominantly in cancer and HIV. METHODS: Staff responsible for studies that were included in a Unit Progress Report (MRC CTU, April 2009) were asked to complete a semi-structured questionnaire survey regarding consumer involvement. This was defined as active involvement of consumers as partners in the research process and not as subjects of that research. The electronic questionnaires combined open and closed questions, intended to capture quantitative and qualitative information on whether studies had involved consumers; types of activities undertaken; recruitment and support; advantages and disadvantages of involvement and its perceived impact on aspects of the research. RESULTS: Between October 2009 and April 2010, 138 completed questionnaires (86%) were returned. Studies had been conducted over a 20 year period from 1989, and around half were in cancer; 30% in HIV and 20% were in other disease areas including arthritis, tuberculosis and blood transfusion medicine. Forty-three studies (31%) had some consumer involvement, most commonly as members of trial management groups (TMG) [88%]. A number of positive impacts on both the research and the researcher were identified. Researchers generally felt involvement was worthwhile and some felt that consumer involvement had improved the credibility of the research. Benefits in design and quality, trial recruitment, dissemination and decision making were also perceived. Researchers felt they learned from consumer involvement, albeit that there were some barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst most researchers identified benefits of involving consumers, most of studies included in the survey had no involvement. Information from this survey will inform the development of a unit policy on consumer involvement, to guide future research conducted within the MRC Clinical Trials Unit and beyond.