Lack of transparent reporting of trial monitoring approaches in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review of contemporary protocol papers.

BACKGROUND: Monitoring is essential to ensure patient safety and data integrity in clinical trials as per Good Clinical Practice. The Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement and its checklist guides authors to include monitoring in their protocols. We investigated how well monitoring was reported in published 'protocol papers' for contemporary randomised controlled trials. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed to identify eligible protocol papers published in selected journals between 1 January 2020 and 31 May 2020. Protocol papers were classified by whether they reported monitoring and, if so, by the details of monitoring. Data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: Of 811 protocol papers for randomised controlled trials, 386 (48%; 95% CI: 44%-51%) explicitly reported some monitoring information. Of these, 20% (77/386) reported monitoring information consistent with an on-site monitoring approach, and 39% (152/386) with central monitoring, 26% (101/386) with a mixed approach, while 14% (54/386) did not provide sufficient information to specify an approach. Only 8% (30/386) of randomised controlled trials reported complete details about all of scope, frequency and organisation of monitoring; frequency of monitoring was the least reported. However, 6% (25/386) of papers used the term 'audit' to describe 'monitoring'. DISCUSSION: Monitoring information was reported in only approximately half of the protocol papers. Suboptimal reporting of monitoring hinders the clinical community from having the full information on which to judge the validity of a trial and jeopardises the value of protocol papers and the credibility of the trial itself. Greater efforts are needed to promote the transparent reporting of monitoring to journal editors and authors.

Germline variation in the insulin-like growth factor pathway and risk of Barrett's esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma.

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC) and its precursor, Barrett's esophagus (BE), have uncovered significant genetic components of risk, but most heritability remains unexplained. Targeted assessment of genetic variation in biologically relevant pathways using novel analytical approaches may identify missed susceptibility signals. Central obesity, a key BE/EAC risk factor, is linked to systemic inflammation, altered hormonal signaling and insulin-like growth factor (IGF) axis dysfunction. Here, we assessed IGF-related genetic variation and risk of BE and EAC. Principal component analysis was employed to evaluate pathway-level and gene-level associations with BE/EAC, using genotypes for 270 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in or near 12 IGF-related genes, ascertained from 3295 BE cases, 2515 EAC cases and 3207 controls in the Barrett's and Esophageal Adenocarcinoma Consortium (BEACON) GWAS. Gene-level signals were assessed using Multi-marker Analysis of GenoMic Annotation (MAGMA) and SNP summary statistics from BEACON and an expanded GWAS meta-analysis (6167 BE cases, 4112 EAC cases, 17 159 controls). Global variation in the IGF pathway was associated with risk of BE (P = 0.0015). Gene-level associations with BE were observed for GHR (growth hormone receptor; P = 0.00046, false discovery rate q = 0.0056) and IGF1R (IGF1 receptor; P = 0.0090, q = 0.0542). These gene-level signals remained significant at q < 0.1 when assessed using data from the largest available BE/EAC GWAS meta-analysis. No significant associations were observed for EAC. This study represents the most comprehensive evaluation to date of inherited genetic variation in the IGF pathway and BE/EAC risk, providing novel evidence that variation in two genes encoding cell-surface receptors, GHR and IGF1R, may influence risk of BE.

Monitoring strategies for clinical intervention studies.

BACKGROUND: Trial monitoring is an important component of good clinical practice to ensure the safety and rights of study participants, confidentiality of personal information, and quality of data. However, the effectiveness of various existing monitoring approaches is unclear. Information to guide the choice of monitoring methods in clinical intervention studies may help trialists, support units, and monitors to effectively adjust their approaches to current knowledge and evidence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different monitoring strategies (including risk-based strategies and others) for clinical intervention studies examined in prospective comparative studies of monitoring interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We systematically searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase via Ovid for relevant published literature up to March 2021. We searched the online 'Studies within A Trial' (SWAT) repository, grey literature, and trial registries for ongoing or unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized or non-randomized prospective, empirical evaluation studies of different monitoring strategies in one or more clinical intervention studies. We applied no restrictions for language or date of publication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on the evaluated monitoring methods, countries involved, study population, study setting, randomization method, and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. Our primary outcome was critical and major monitoring findings in prospective intervention studies. Monitoring findings were classified according to different error domains (e.g. major eligibility violations) and the primary outcome measure was a composite of these domains. Secondary outcomes were individual error domains, participant recruitment and follow-up, and resource use. If we identified more than one study for a comparison and outcome definitions were similar across identified studies, we quantitatively summarized effects in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. Otherwise, we qualitatively summarized the results of eligible studies stratified by different comparisons of monitoring strategies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for different groups of comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We identified eight eligible studies, which we grouped into five comparisons. 1. Risk-based versus extensive on-site monitoring: based on two large studies, we found moderate certainty of evidence for the combined primary outcome of major or critical findings that risk-based monitoring is not inferior to extensive on-site monitoring. Although the risk ratio was close to 'no difference' (1.03 with a 95% confidence interval [CI] of 0.81 to 1.33, below 1.0 in favor of the risk-based strategy), the high imprecision in one study and the small number of eligible studies resulted in a wide CI of the summary estimate. Low certainty of evidence suggested that monitoring strategies with extensive on-site monitoring were associated with considerably higher resource use and costs (up to a factor of 3.4). Data on recruitment or retention of trial participants were not available. 2. Central monitoring with triggered on-site visits versus regular on-site visits: combining the results of two eligible studies yielded low certainty of evidence with a risk ratio of 1.83 (95% CI 0.51 to 6.55) in favor of triggered monitoring intervention. Data on recruitment, retention, and resource use were not available. 3. Central statistical monitoring and local monitoring performed by site staff with annual on-site visits versus central statistical monitoring and local monitoring only: based on one study, there was moderate certainty of evidence that a small number of major and critical findings were missed with the central monitoring approach without on-site visits: 3.8% of participants in the group without on-site visits and 6.4% in the group with on-site visits had a major or critical monitoring finding (odds ratio 1.7, 95% CI 1.1 to 2.7; P = 0.03). The absolute number of monitoring findings was very low, probably because defined major and critical findings were very study specific and central monitoring was present in both intervention groups. Very low certainty of evidence did not suggest a relevant effect on participant retention, and very low certainty evidence indicated an extra cost for on-site visits of USD 2,035,392. There were no data on recruitment. 4. Traditional 100% source data verification (SDV) versus targeted or remote SDV: the two studies assessing targeted and remote SDV reported findings only related to source documents. Compared to the final database obtained using the full SDV monitoring process, only a small proportion of remaining errors on overall data were identified using the targeted SDV process in the MONITORING study (absolute difference 1.47%, 95% CI 1.41% to 1.53%). Targeted SDV was effective in the verification of source documents, but increased the workload on data management. The other included study was a pilot study, which compared traditional on-site SDV versus remote SDV and found little difference in monitoring findings and the ability to locate data values despite marked differences in remote access in two clinical trial networks. There were no data on recruitment or retention. 5. Systematic on-site initiation visit versus on-site initiation visit upon request: very low certainty of evidence suggested no difference in retention and recruitment between the two approaches. There were no data on critical and major findings or on resource use. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base is limited in terms of quantity and quality. Ideally, for each of the five identified comparisons, more prospective, comparative monitoring studies nested in clinical trials and measuring effects on all outcomes specified in this review are necessary to draw more reliable conclusions. However, the results suggesting risk-based, targeted, and mainly central monitoring as an efficient strategy are promising. The development of reliable triggers for on-site visits is ongoing; different triggers might be used in different settings. More evidence on risk indicators that identify sites with problems or the prognostic value of triggers is needed to further optimize central monitoring strategies. In particular, approaches with an initial assessment of trial-specific risks that need to be closely monitored centrally during trial conduct with triggered on-site visits should be evaluated in future research.

Practicalities in running early-phase trials using the time-to-event continual reassessment method (TiTE-CRM) for interventions with long toxicity periods using two radiotherapy oncology trials as examples.

BACKGROUND: Awareness of model-based designs for dose-finding studies such as the Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) is now becoming more commonplace amongst clinicians, statisticians and trial management staff. In some settings toxicities can occur a long time after treatment has finished, resulting in extremely long, interrupted, CRM design trials. The Time-to-Event CRM (TiTE-CRM), a modification to the original CRM, accounts for the timing of late-onset toxicities and results in shorter trial duration. In this article, we discuss how to design and deliver a trial using this method, from the grant application stage through to dissemination, using two radiotherapy trials as examples. METHODS: The TiTE-CRM encapsulates the dose-toxicity relationship with a statistical model. The model incorporates observed toxicities and uses a weight to account for the proportion of completed follow-up of participants without toxicity. This model uses all available data to determine the next participant's dose and subsequently declare the maximum tolerated dose. We focus on two trials designed by the authors to illustrate practical issues when designing, setting up, and running such studies. RESULTS: In setting up a TiTE-CRM trial, model parameters need to be defined and the time element involved might cause complications, therefore looking at operating characteristics through simulations is essential. At the grant application stage, we suggest resources to fund statisticians' time before funding is awarded and make recommendations for the level of detail to include in funding applications. While running the trial, close contact of all involved staff is required as a dose decision is made each time a participant is recruited. We suggest ways of capturing data in a timely manner and give example code in R for design and delivery of the trial. Finally, we touch upon dissemination issues while the trial is running and upon completion. CONCLUSION: Model-based designs can be complex. We hope this paper will help clinical trial teams to demystify the conduct of TiTE-CRM trials and be a starting point for using this methodology in practice.

Esomeprazole and aspirin in Barrett's oesophagus (AspECT): a randomised factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma is the sixth most common cause of cancer death worldwide and Barrett's oesophagus is the biggest risk factor. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of high-dose esomeprazole proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) and aspirin for improving outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. METHODS: The Aspirin and Esomeprazole Chemoprevention in Barrett's metaplasia Trial had a 2 × 2 factorial design and was done at 84 centres in the UK and one in Canada. Patients with Barrett's oesophagus of 1 cm or more were randomised 1:1:1:1 using a computer-generated schedule held in a central trials unit to receive high-dose (40 mg twice-daily) or low-dose (20 mg once-daily) PPI, with or without aspirin (300 mg per day in the UK, 325 mg per day in Canada) for at least 8 years, in an unblinded manner. Reporting pathologists were masked to treatment allocation. The primary composite endpoint was time to all-cause mortality, oesophageal adenocarcinoma, or high-grade dysplasia, which was analysed with accelerated failure time modelling adjusted for minimisation factors (age, Barrett's oesophagus length, intestinal metaplasia) in all patients in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with EudraCT, number 2004-003836-77. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2005, and March 1, 2009, 2557 patients were recruited. 705 patients were assigned to low-dose PPI and no aspirin, 704 to high-dose PPI and no aspirin, 571 to low-dose PPI and aspirin, and 577 to high-dose PPI and aspirin. Median follow-up and treatment duration was 8·9 years (IQR 8·2-9·8), and we collected 20 095 follow-up years and 99·9% of planned data. 313 primary events occurred. High-dose PPI (139 events in 1270 patients) was superior to low-dose PPI (174 events in 1265 patients; time ratio [TR] 1·27, 95% CI 1·01-1·58, p=0·038). Aspirin (127 events in 1138 patients) was not significantly better than no aspirin (154 events in 1142 patients; TR 1·24, 0·98-1·57, p=0·068). If patients using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were censored at the time of first use, aspirin was significantly better than no aspirin (TR 1·29, 1·01-1·66, p=0·043; n=2236). Combining high-dose PPI with aspirin had the strongest effect compared with low-dose PPI without aspirin (TR 1·59, 1·14-2·23, p=0·0068). The numbers needed to treat were 34 for PPI and 43 for aspirin. Only 28 (1%) participants reported study-treatment-related serious adverse events. INTERPRETATION: High-dose PPI and aspirin chemoprevention therapy, especially in combination, significantly and safely improved outcomes in patients with Barrett's oesophagus. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca, Wellcome Trust, and Health Technology Assessment.

How to design a dose-finding study using the continual reassessment method.

INTRODUCTION: The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce. METHODS: To help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM. RESULTS: An initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Integration of genetic and clinical risk factors improves prognostication in relapsed childhood B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia.

Somatic genetic abnormalities are initiators and drivers of disease and have proven clinical utility at initial diagnosis. However, the genetic landscape and its clinical utility at relapse are less well understood and have not been studied comprehensively. We analyzed cytogenetic data from 427 children with relapsed B-cell precursor ALL treated on the international trial, ALLR3. Also we screened 238 patients with a marrow relapse for selected copy number alterations (CNAs) and mutations. Cytogenetic risk groups were predictive of outcome postrelapse and survival rates at 5 years for patients with good, intermediate-, and high-risk cytogenetics were 68%, 47%, and 26%, respectively (P < .001). TP53 alterations and NR3C1/BTG1 deletions were associated with a higher risk of progression: hazard ratio 2.36 (95% confidence interval, 1.51-3.70, P < .001) and 2.15 (1.32-3.48, P = .002). NRAS mutations were associated with an increased risk of progression among standard-risk patients with high hyperdiploidy: 3.17 (1.15-8.71, P = .026). Patients classified clinically as standard and high risk had distinct genetic profiles. The outcome of clinical standard-risk patients with high-risk cytogenetics was equivalent to clinical high-risk patients. Screening patients at relapse for key genetic abnormalities will enable the integration of genetic and clinical risk factors to improve patient stratification and outcome. This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.org as #ISCRTN45724312.

Embracing model-based designs for dose-finding trials.

BACKGROUND: Dose-finding trials are essential to drug development as they establish recommended doses for later-phase testing. We aim to motivate wider use of model-based designs for dose finding, such as the continual reassessment method (CRM). METHODS: We carried out a literature review of dose-finding designs and conducted a survey to identify perceived barriers to their implementation. RESULTS: We describe the benefits of model-based designs (flexibility, superior operating characteristics, extended scope), their current uptake, and existing resources. The most prominent barriers to implementation of a model-based design were lack of suitable training, chief investigators' preference for algorithm-based designs (e.g., 3+3), and limited resources for study design before funding. We use a real-world example to illustrate how these barriers can be overcome. CONCLUSIONS: There is overwhelming evidence for the benefits of CRM. Many leading pharmaceutical companies routinely implement model-based designs. Our analysis identified barriers for academic statisticians and clinical academics in mirroring the progress industry has made in trial design. Unified support from funders, regulators, and journal editors could result in more accurate doses for later-phase testing, and increase the efficiency and success of clinical drug development. We give recommendations for increasing the uptake of model-based designs for dose-finding trials in academia.

Genome-wide association studies in oesophageal adenocarcinoma and Barrett's oesophagus: a large-scale meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Oesophageal adenocarcinoma represents one of the fastest rising cancers in high-income countries. Barrett's oesophagus is the premalignant precursor of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. However, only a few patients with Barrett's oesophagus develop adenocarcinoma, which complicates clinical management in the absence of valid predictors. Within an international consortium investigating the genetics of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, we aimed to identify novel genetic risk variants for the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma. METHODS: We did a meta-analysis of all genome-wide association studies of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma available in PubMed up to Feb 29, 2016; all patients were of European ancestry and disease was confirmed histopathologically. All participants were from four separate studies within Europe, North America, and Australia and were genotyped on high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) arrays. Meta-analysis was done with a fixed-effects inverse variance-weighting approach and with a standard genome-wide significance threshold (p<5 × 10-8). We also did an association analysis after reweighting of loci with an approach that investigates annotation enrichment among genome-wide significant loci. Furthermore, the entire dataset was analysed with bioinformatics approaches-including functional annotation databases and gene-based and pathway-based methods-to identify pathophysiologically relevant cellular mechanisms. FINDINGS: Our sample comprised 6167 patients with Barrett's oesophagus and 4112 individuals with oesophageal adenocarcinoma, in addition to 17 159 representative controls from four genome-wide association studies in Europe, North America, and Australia. We identified eight new risk loci associated with either Barrett's oesophagus or oesophageal adenocarcinoma, within or near the genes CFTR (rs17451754; p=4·8 × 10-10), MSRA (rs17749155; p=5·2 × 10-10), LINC00208 and BLK (rs10108511; p=2·1 × 10-9), KHDRBS2 (rs62423175; p=3·0 × 10-9), TPPP and CEP72 (rs9918259; p=3·2 × 10-9), TMOD1 (rs7852462; p=1·5 × 10-8), SATB2 (rs139606545; p=2·0 × 10-8), and HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696; p=1·6 × 10-8). The locus identified near HTR3C and ABCC5 (rs9823696) was associated specifically with oesophageal adenocarcinoma (p=1·6 × 10-8) and was independent of Barrett's oesophagus development (p=0·45). A ninth novel risk locus was identified within the gene LPA (rs12207195; posterior probability 0·925) after reweighting with significantly enriched annotations. The strongest disease pathways identified (p<10-6) belonged to muscle cell differentiation and to mesenchyme development and differentiation. INTERPRETATION: Our meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies doubled the number of known risk loci for Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma and revealed new insights into causes of these diseases. Furthermore, the specific association between oesophageal adenocarcinoma and the locus near HTR3C and ABCC5 might constitute a novel genetic marker for prediction of the transition from Barrett's oesophagus to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. Fine-mapping and functional studies of new risk loci could lead to identification of key molecules in the development of Barrett's oesophagus and oesophageal adenocarcinoma, which might encourage development of advanced prevention and intervention strategies. FUNDING: US National Cancer Institute, US National Institutes of Health, National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, Swedish Cancer Society, Medical Research Council UK, Cambridge NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre, Else Kröner Fresenius Stiftung, Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, AstraZeneca UK, University Hospitals of Leicester, University of Oxford, Australian Research Council.

NCRI phase II study of CHOP in combination with ofatumumab in induction and maintenance in newly diagnosed Richter syndrome.

Richter syndrome (RS) is associated with chemotherapy resistance and a poor historical median overall survival (OS) of 8-10 months. We conducted a phase II trial of standard CHOP-21 (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisolone every 21 d) with ofatumumab induction (Cycle 1: 300 mg day 1, 1000 mg day 8, 1000 mg day 15; Cycles 2-6: 1000 mg day 1) (CHOP-O) followed by 12 months ofatumumab maintenance (1000 mg given 8-weekly for up to six cycles). Forty-three patients were recruited of whom 37 were evaluable. Seventy-three per cent were aged >60 years. Over half of the patients received a fludarabine and cyclophosphamide-based regimen as prior CLL treatment. The overall response rate was 46% (complete response 27%, partial response 19%) at six cycles. The median progression-free survival was 6·2 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·9-14·0 months) and median OS was 11·4 months (95% CI 6·4-25·6 months). Treatment-naïve and TP53-intact patients had improved outcomes. Fifteen episodes of neutropenic fever and 46 non-neutropenic infections were observed. There were no treatment-related deaths. Seven patients received platinum-containing salvage at progression, with only one patient obtaining an adequate response to proceed to allogeneic transplantation. CHOP-O with ofatumumab maintenance provides minimal benefit beyond CHOP plus rutuximab. Standard immunochemotherapy for RS remains wholly inadequate for unselected RS. Multinational trials incorporating novel agents are urgently needed.

FOXFIRE protocol: an open-label, randomised, phase III trial of 5-fluorouracil, oxaliplatin and folinic acid (OxMdG) with or without interventional Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT) as first-line treatment for patients with unresectable liver-only or liver-dominant metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common malignancy in Europe and a leading cause of cancer-related death. Almost 50% of patients with CRC develop liver metastases, which heralds a poor prognosis unless metastases can be downsized to surgical resection or ablation. The FOXFIRE trial examines the hypothesis that combining radiosensitising chemotherapy (OxMdG: oxaliplatin, 5-fluorouracil and folic acid) with Selective Internal Radiation Therapy (SIRT or radioembolisation) using yttrium-90 resin microspheres (SIR-Spheres®; Sirtex Medical Limited, North Sydney, Australia) as a first-line treatment for liver-dominant metastatic CRC will improve clinical outcomes when compared to OxMdG chemotherapy alone. METHODS/DESIGN: FOXFIRE is an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial of OxMdG with or without the addition of SIRT (1:1 randomisation). Eligible adult patients have histologically confirmed colorectal adenocarcinoma, liver metastases measurable on computed tomography scan and untreatable by either surgical resection or local ablation, and they may have limited extra-hepatic disease, defined as ≤5 nodules in the lung and/or one other metastatic site which is amenable to future definitive treatment. Eligible patients may have received adjuvant chemotherapy following resection of the primary tumour, but are not permitted to have previously received chemotherapy for metastatic disease, and must have a life expectancy of ≥3 months and a WHO performance status of 0-1. The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include progression free survival (PFS), liver-specific PFS, patient-reported outcomes, safety, response rate, resection rate and cost-effectiveness. FOXFIRE shares a combined statistical analysis plan with an international sister trial called SIRFLOX. DISCUSSION: This trial is establishing a network of SIRT centres and 'feeder' chemotherapy-only centres to standardise the delivery of SIRT across the whole of the UK and to provide greater equity of access to this highly specialised liver-directed therapy. The FOXFIRE trial will establish the potential role of adding SIRT to first-line chemotherapy for unresectable liver metastatic colorectal cancer, and the impact on current treatment paradigms for metastatic CRC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN83867919.

A pilot study: dose adaptation of capecitabine using mobile phone toxicity monitoring - supporting patients in their homes.

PURPOSE: Real-time symptom monitoring using a mobile phone is potentially advantageous for patients receiving oral chemotherapy. We therefore conducted a pilot study of patient dose adaptation using mobile phone monitoring of specific symptoms to investigate relative dose intensity of capecitabine, level of toxicity and perceived supportive care. METHODS: Patients with breast or colorectal cancer receiving capecitabine completed a symptom, temperature and dose diary twice a day using a mobile phone application. This information was encrypted and automatically transmitted in real time to a secure server, with moderate levels of toxicity automatically prompting self-care symptom management messages on the screen of the patient's mobile phone or in severe cases, a call from a specialist nurse to advise on care according to an agreed protocol. RESULTS: Patients (n = 26) completed the mobile phone diary on 92.6 % of occasions. Twelve patients had a maximum toxicity grade of 3 (46.2 %). The average dose intensity for all patients as a percentage of standard dose was 90 %. In eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was reduced, and in eight patients, the dose of capecitabine was increased. Patients and healthcare professionals involved felt reassured by the novel monitoring system, in particular, during out of hours. CONCLUSION: It is possible to optimise the individual dose of oral chemotherapy safely including dose increase and to manage chemotherapy side effects effectively using real-time mobile phone monitoring of toxicity parameters entered by the patient.

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.

Using healthcare systems data for outcomes in clinical trials: issues to consider at the design stage.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare system data (HSD) are increasingly used in clinical trials, augmenting or replacing traditional methods of collecting outcome data. This study, PRIMORANT, set out to identify, in the UK context, issues to be considered before the decision to use HSD for outcome data in a clinical trial is finalised, a methodological question prioritised by the clinical trials community. METHODS: The PRIMORANT study had three phases. First, an initial workshop was held to scope the issues faced by trialists when considering whether to use HSDs for trial outcomes. Second, a consultation exercise was undertaken with clinical trials unit (CTU) staff, trialists, methodologists, clinicians, funding panels and data providers. Third, a final discussion workshop was held, at which the results of the consultation were fed back, case studies presented, and issues considered in small breakout groups. RESULTS: Key topics included in the consultation process were the validity of outcome data, timeliness of data capture, internal pilots, data-sharing, practical issues, and decision-making. A majority of consultation respondents (n = 78, 95%) considered the development of guidance for trialists to be feasible. Guidance was developed following the discussion workshop, for the five broad areas of terminology, feasibility, internal pilots, onward data sharing, and data archiving. CONCLUSIONS: We provide guidance to inform decisions about whether or not to use HSDs for outcomes, and if so, to assist trialists in working with registries and other HSD providers to improve the design and delivery of trials.

Monitoring metrics over time: Why clinical trialists need to systematically collect site performance metrics.

Background: Over the last decade, there has been an increasing interest in risk-based monitoring (RBM) in clinical trials, resulting in a number of guidelines from regulators and its inclusion in ICH GCP. However, there is a lack of detail on how to approach RBM from a practical perspective, and insufficient understanding of best practice. Purpose: We present a method for clinical trials units to track their metrics within clinical trials using descriptive statistics and visualisations. Research Design: We suggest descriptive statistics and visualisations within a SWAT methodology. Study Sample: We illustrate this method using the metrics from TEMPER, a monitoring study carried out in three trials at the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL. Data Collection: The data collection for TEMPER is described in DOI: 10.1177/1740774518793379. Results: We show the results and discuss a protocol for a Study-Within-A-Trial (SWAT 167) for those wishing to use the method. Conclusions: The potential benefits metric tracking brings to clinical trials include enhanced assessment of sites for potential corrective action, improved evaluation and contextualisation of the influence of metrics and their thresholds, and the establishment of best practice in RBM. The standardisation of the collection of such monitoring data would benefit both individual trials and the clinical trials community.

Uptake of the multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive platform approach: a trial-registry review of late-phase randomised clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: For medical conditions with numerous interventions worthy of investigation, there are many advantages of a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) platform trial approach. However, there is currently limited knowledge on uptake of the MAMS design, especially in the late-phase setting. We sought to examine uptake and characteristics of late-phase MAMS platform trials, to enable better planning for teams considering future use of this approach. DESIGN: We examined uptake of registered, late-phase MAMS platforms in the EU clinical trials register, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number registry, Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform and databases: PubMed, Medline, Cochrane Library, Global Health Library and EMBASE. Searching was performed and review data frozen on 1 April 2021. MAMS platforms were defined as requiring two or more comparison arms, with two or more trial stages, with an interim analysis allowing for stopping of recruitment to arms and typically the ability to add new intervention arms. RESULTS: 62 late-phase clinical trials using an MAMS approach were included. Overall, the number of late-phase trials using the MAMS design has been increasing since 2001 and been accelerated by COVID-19. The majority of current MAMS platforms were either targeting infectious diseases (52%) or cancers (29%) and all identified trials were for treatment interventions. 89% (55/62) of MAMS platforms were evaluating medications, with 45% (28/62) of the MAMS platforms having at least one or more repurposed medication as a comparison arm. CONCLUSIONS: Historically, late-phase trials have adhered to long-established standard (two-arm) designs. However, the number of late-phase MAMS platform trials is increasing, across a range of different disease areas. This study highlights the potential scope of MAMS platform trials and may assist research teams considering use of this approach in the late-phase randomised clinical trial setting. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019153910.

What is the purpose of clinical trial monitoring?

BACKGROUND: The sources of information on clinical trial monitoring do not give information in an accessible language and do not give detailed guidance. In order to enable communication and to build clinical trial monitoring tools on a strong easily communicated foundation, we identified the need to define monitoring in accessible language. METHODS: In a three-step process, the material from sources that describe clinical trial monitoring were synthesised into principles of monitoring. A poll regarding their applicability was run at a UK national academic clinical trials monitoring meeting. RESULTS: The process derived 5 key principles of monitoring: keeping participants safe and respecting their rights, having data we can trust, making sure the trial is being run as it was meant to be, improving the way the trial is run and preventing problems before they happen. CONCLUSION: From the many sources mentioning monitoring of clinical trials, the purpose of monitoring can be summarised simply as 5 principles. These principles, given in accessible language, should form a firm basis for discussion of monitoring of clinical trials.

Practical guidance for running late-phase platform protocols for clinical trials: lessons from experienced UK clinical trials units.

BACKGROUND: Late-phase platform protocols (including basket, umbrella, multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS), and master protocols) are generally agreed to be more efficient than traditional two-arm clinical trial designs but are not extensively used. We have gathered the experience of running a number of successful platform protocols together to present some operational recommendations. METHODS: Representatives of six UK clinical trials units with experience in running late-phase platform protocols attended a 1-day meeting structured to discuss various practical aspects of running these trials. We report and give guidance on operational aspects which are either harder to implement compared to a traditional late-phase trial or are specific to platform protocols. RESULTS: We present a list of practical recommendations for trialists intending to design and conduct late-phase platform protocols. Our recommendations cover the entire life cycle of a platform trial: from protocol development, obtaining funding, and trial set-up, to a wide range of operational and regulatory aspects such as staffing, oversight, data handling, and data management, to the reporting of results, with a particular focus on communication with trial participants and stakeholders as well as public and patient involvement. DISCUSSION: Platform protocols enable many questions to be answered efficiently to the benefit of patients. Our practical lessons from running platform trials will support trial teams in learning how to run these trials more effectively and efficiently.