WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening.

OBJECTIVES: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps. DESIGN: The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured. RESULTS: 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81466870.

Endoscopic ultrasound staging in patients with gastro-oesophageal cancers: a systematic review of economic evidence.

BACKGROUND: The sensitivity of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in staging gastro-oesophageal cancers (GOCs) has been widely studied. However, the economic evidence of EUS staging in the management of patients with GOCs is scarce. This review aimed to examine all economic evidence (not limited to randomised controlled trials) of the use of EUS staging in the management of GOCs patients, and to offer a review of economic evidence on the costs, benefits (in terms of GOCs patients' health-related quality of life), and economic implications of the use of EUS in staging GOCs patients. METHODS: The protocol was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42016043700; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42016043700 ). MEDLINE (ovid), EMBASE (ovid), The Cochrane Collaboration Register and Library (including the British National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (Core Collection) as well as reference lists were systematically searched for studies conducted between 1996 and 2018 (search update 28/04/2018). Two authors independently screened the identified articles, assessed study quality, and extracted data. Study characteristics of the included articles, including incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, when available, were summarised narratively. RESULTS: Of the 197 articles retrieved, six studies met the inclusion criteria: three economic studies and three economic modelling studies. Of the three economic studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost analyses. Of the three economic modelling studies, one was a cost-effectiveness analysis and two were cost-minimisation analyses. Both of the cost-effectiveness analyses reported that use of EUS as an additional staging technique provided, on average, more QALYs (0.0019-0.1969 more QALYs) and saved costs (by £1969-£3364 per patient, 2017 price year) compared to staging strategy without EUS. Of the six studies, only one included GOCs participants and the other five included oesophageal cancer participants. CONCLUSIONS: The data available suggest use of EUS as a complementary staging technique to other staging techniques for GOCs appears to be cost saving and offers greater QALYs. Nevertheless, future studies are necessary because the economic evidence around this EUS staging intervention for GOCs is far from robust. More health economic research and good quality data are needed to judge the economic benefits of EUS staging for GOCs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016043700 .

Trial of personalised care after treatment-Prostate cancer: A randomised feasibility trial of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The present parallel randomised control trial evaluated the feasibility of a nurse-led psycho-educational intervention aimed at improving the self-management of prostate cancer survivors. METHODS: We identified 305 eligible patients from a district general hospital, diagnosed 9-48 months previously, who completed radical treatment, or were monitored clinically (ineligible for treatment). Ninety-five patients were recruited by blinded selection and randomised to Intervention (N = 48) and Control (N = 47) groups. Participant allocation was revealed to patients and researchers after recruitment was completed. For 36 weeks, participants received augmented usual care (Control) or augmented usual care and additional nurse support (Intervention) provided in two community hospitals and a university clinic, or by telephone. RESULTS: Data from 91 participants (Intervention, N = 45; Control, N = 46) were analysed. All feasibility metrics met predefined targets: recruitment rate (31.15%; 95% CI: 25.95%-36.35%), attrition rate (9.47%; 95% CI: 3.58%-15.36%) and outcome measures completion rates (77%-92%). Forty-five patients received the intervention, with no adverse events. The Extended Prostate Cancer Index Composite can inform the minimum sample size for a future effectiveness trial. The net intervention cost was £317 per patient. CONCLUSIONS: The results supported the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, suggesting that it should be evaluated in a fully powered trial to assess its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Improving quality of life through the routine use of the patient concerns inventory for head and neck cancer patients: a cluster preference randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The consequences of treatment for Head and Neck cancer (HNC) patients has profound detrimental impacts such as impaired QOL, emotional distress, delayed recovery and frequent use of healthcare. The aim of this trial is to determine if the routine use of the Patients Concerns Inventory (PCI) package in review clinics during the first year following treatment can improve overall quality of life, reduce the social-emotional impact of cancer and reduce levels of distress. Furthermore, we aim to describe the economic costs and benefits of using the PCI. METHODS: This will be a cluster preference randomised control trial with consultants either 'using' or 'not using' the PCI package at clinic. It will involve two centres Leeds and Liverpool. 416 eligible patients from at least 10 consultant clusters are required to show a clinically meaningful difference in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the percentage of participants with less than good overall quality of life at the final one-year clinic as measured by the University of Washington QOL questionnaire version 4 (UWQOLv4). Secondary outcomes at one-year are the mean social-emotional subscale (UWQOLv4) score, Distress Thermometer (DT) score ≥ 4, and key health economic measures (QALY-EQ-5D-5 L; CSRI). DISCUSSION: This trial will provide knowledge on the effectiveness of a consultation intervention package based around the PCI used at routine follow-up clinics following treatment of head and neck cancer with curative intent. If this intervention is (cost) effective for patients, the next step will be to promote wider use of this approach as standard care in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 32,382. Clinical Trials Identifier, NCT03086629 . PROTOCOL: Version 3.0, 1st July 2017.

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological Cancer (TOPCAT-G): A Randomized Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of completing a parallel-group randomized controlled trial to compare usual follow-up care for women who have completed treatment of gynecological cancer against a nurse-led telephone intervention, known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological. METHODS: The unblinded trial aimed to recruit patients who had completed treatment of cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian, or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months at 3 North Wales hospitals. We randomized participants to either usual hospital-based follow-up or specialist nurse-led telephone education, empowerment, and structured needs assessment follow-up. The primary outcomes assessed the feasibility of running a larger trial including patient eligibility, recruitment and retention rates, and outcome measure completion. Secondary outcomes were generic and health-related quality of life and a patient self-report health service use (Client Service Receipt Inventory) data collected at 3 time points (baseline, 3 months, and 6 months). RESULTS: Of the 58 women screened, 44 were eligible (76%) and 24 (55%) were recruited and randomized (12:12 to control and intervention, respectively). One participant was lost to follow-up. Recruited participants had a mean (SD) age of 60 (11.2) years and were approximately 5 months from their initial diagnosis (mean [SD], 159 [58] days). Seventeen (71%) of the participants had an endometrial cancer diagnosis. All outcome measure completion rates exceeded 96%. Although not a core feasibility objective, analyses of outcome measures indicated positive changes in quality of life and well-being within the Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment-Gynaecological group; exploratory cost consequence analysis indicated that the nurse-led intervention had a mean total service use cost of £27 per patient (bootstrapped 95% confidence interval, -£290 to £240) lower than did the standard care group. CONCLUSION: Eligibility, recruitment, and retention rates as well as outcome measure completion showed that the trial is feasible.

Immediate chest X-ray for patients at risk of lung cancer presenting in primary care: randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Achieving earlier stage diagnosis is one option for improving lung cancer outcomes in the United Kingdom. Patients with lung cancer typically present with symptoms to general practitioners several times before referral or investigation. METHODS: We undertook a mixed methods feasibility individually randomised controlled trial (the ELCID trial) to assess the feasibility and inform the design of a definitive, fully powered, UK-wide, Phase III trial of lowering the threshold for urgent investigation of suspected lung cancer. Patients over 60, with a smoking history, presenting with new chest symptoms to primary care, were eligible to be randomised to intervention (urgent chest X-ray) or usual care. RESULTS: The trial design and materials were acceptable to GPs and patients. We randomised 255 patients from 22 practices, although the proportion of eligible patients who participated was lower than expected. Survey responses (89%), and the fidelity of the intervention (82% patients X-rayed within 3 weeks) were good. There was slightly higher anxiety and depression in the control arm in participants aged >75. Three patients (1.2%) were diagnosed with lung cancer. CONCLUSIONS: We have demonstrated the feasibility of individually randomising patients at higher risk of lung cancer, to a trial offering urgent investigation or usual care.

An Economic Evaluation Supported by Qualitative Data About the Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) versus Standard Treatment Pathway in the Management of Patients with Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The head and neck cancer (HNC) Patient Concerns Inventory (PCI) is a condition-specific prompt list that allows patients to raise concerns to cancer consultants that otherwise might be overlooked. OBJECTIVE: This is the first economic evaluation of the PCI in patients with HNC investigating the costs and effects to the health service of not prioritising certain treatment pathways in addition to the primary cancer pathway. Additional costs can be accrued due to delayed referral to other appropriate services, e.g. hospital dentist. Economic evidence could influence future policy direction in this area globally. METHODS: Alongside a 3-year clustered randomised controlled trial, an economic evaluation was undertaken with Client Service Receipt Inventory data collected at three different time points (baseline and 6 and 12 months post-baseline). Patients were identified by a multidisciplinary team at the trial clinics. This economic analysis compared the PCI intervention versus the non-PCI treatment pathway. A deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to investigate the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gain of the PCI versus non-PCI intervention treatment pathways. Qualitative data were also collected from seven consultants to triangulate findings from the economic evaluation. RESULTS: The analysis used data from 191 patients (66% of the full trial sample). The PCI inventory was low cost, at just over £13 per participant. The PCI intervention was cost effective and also cost saving, with an incremental cost difference of £295.91 over the 12-month follow-up period. The QALY values were higher in the PCI intervention strategy, with a value of 0.79, whereas the non-PCI group had a value of 0.76, thus the PCI intervention was dominant. The sensitivity analysis showed that, at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained, the probability of being cost effective was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.80-0.83). Qualitative results showed that consultants using the PCI reported an enhanced awareness of patients' overall post-treatment needs. DISCUSSION: The PCI provided an effective means to conduct clinical consultations by avoiding unnecessary healthcare costs and focussing on aspects of care most important to patients. The cost per QALY gain was within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline threshold. The economic evaluation showed that the PCI intervention strategy was dominant and therefore cost saving to the national health service (NHS) and was more effective in terms of treatment. CONCLUSION: The PCI appears to be a low-cost intervention that generates a cost-effective benefit to patients from a NHS perspective if rolled out as part of routine care. Qualitative evidence has shown that the use of the PCI is supported by consultants in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Identifier: NCT03086629.

Standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes: pragmatic randomised trial of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effectiveness of standardised self-management kits for children with type 1 diabetes. DESIGN: Pragmatic trial with randomisation ratio of two intervention: one control. Qualitative process evaluation. SETTING: 11 diabetes clinics in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Between February 2010 and August 2011, we validly randomised 308 children aged 6-18 years; 201 received the intervention. INTERVENTION: We designed kits to empower children to achieve glycaemic control, notably by recording blood glucose and titrating insulin. The comparator was usual treatment. OUTCOME MEASURES AT 3 AND 6 MONTHS: Primary: Diabetes Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Secondary: HbA1c; General PedsQL; EQ-5D; healthcare resource use. RESULTS: Of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions, Worry showed adjusted scores significantly favouring self-management kits at 3 months (mean child-reported difference =+5.87; Standard error[SE]=2.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]) from +1.57 to +10.18; p=0.008); but Treatment Adherence significantly favoured controls at 6 months (mean child-reported difference=-4.68; SE=1.74; 95%CI from -8.10 to -1.25; p=0.008). Intervention children reported significantly worse changes between 3 and 6 months on four of the five Diabetes PedsQL dimensions and on the total score (mean difference=-3.20; SE=1.33; 95% CI from -5.73 to -0.67; p=0.020). There was no evidence of change in HbA1c; only 18% of participants in each group achieved recommended levels at 6 months. No serious adverse reactions attributable to the intervention or its absence were reported.Use of kits was poor. Few children or parents associated blood glucose readings with better glycaemic control. The kits, costing £185, alienated many children and parents. CONCLUSIONS: Standardised kits showed no evidence of benefit, inhibited diabetes self-management and increased worry. Future research should study relationships between children and professionals, and seek new methods of helping children and parents to manage diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17551624.

Long-term effectiveness of a parenting intervention for children at risk of developing conduct disorder.

BACKGROUND: The typical pattern for intervention outcome studies for conduct problems has been for effect sizes to dissipate over time with decreasing effects across subsequent follow-ups. AIMS: To establish whether the short-term positive effects of a parenting programme are sustained longer term. To observe trends, and costs, in health and social service use after intervention. METHOD: Parents with children aged 36-59 months at risk of developing conduct disorder (n = 104) received intervention between baseline and first follow-up (6 months after baseline n = 86) in 11 Sure Start areas in North Wales. Follow-ups two (n = 82) and three (n = 79) occurred 12 and 18 months after baseline. Child problem behaviour and parenting skills were assessed via parent self-report and direct observation in the home. RESULTS: The significant parent-reported improvements in primary measures of child behaviour, parent behaviour, parental stress and depression gained at follow-up one were maintained to follow-up three, as were improved observed child and parent behaviours. Overall, 63% of children made a minimum significant change (0.3 standard deviations) on the Eyberg Child Behavior Inventory problem scale between baseline and follow-up (using intention-to-treat data), 54% made a large change (0.8 standard deviations) and 39% made a very large change (1.5 standard deviations). Child contact with health and social services had reduced at follow-up three. CONCLUSIONS: Early parent-based intervention reduced child antisocial behaviour and benefits were maintained, with reduced reliance on health and social service provision, over time.

The WASh Trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Programme: study protocol for a randomized multicenter trial.

Background and study aims The English National Bowel Scope Screening Programme (BSSP) invites 55-year-olds for a one-off, unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG). Data from BSSP participant-reported experience studies shows 1 in 3 participants report moderate or severe discomfort. Water-assisted colonoscopy (WAS) may improve participants' comfort. The primary objective of this study is to ascertain if post-procedural participant-assessed pain is reduced in WAS compared with carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) insufflation, in invitees undergoing FSIG in BSSP. Patients and methods This is a multicenter, prospective, randomized, two-arm, single-blinded trial designed to evaluate the performance of WAS versus CO 2 insufflation in BSSP. Participants will be randomized to either CO 2 or WAS and will be asked to rate pain post-procedure. Key procedure-related data will be analyzed, including adenoma detection rates (ADR) and degree of sigmoid looping. A cost-effectiveness analysis of WAS versus CO 2 and a discrete choice experiment exploring preferences of participants for attributes of sigmoidoscopy will also be performed. Discussion This is the first trial in the United Kingdom (UK) to investigate the effects of WAS in a screening setting. If the trial shows WAS either reduces pain or increases ADR, this may result in a practice change to implement WAS in screening and non-screening endoscopic practice directly impacting on 256,000 people a year who will undergo BSSP FSIG by 2020. Trial funding came from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) supported by the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The trial is actively recruiting. ID: 35866 ISRCTN: 81466870.

Preferences of older patients regarding hip fracture rehabilitation service configuration: A feasibility discrete choice experiment.

OBJECTIVE: As part of a wider feasibility study, the feasibility of gaining older patients' views for hip fracture rehabilitation services was tested using a discrete choice experiment in a UK context. DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment is a method used for eliciting individuals' preferences about goods and services. SUBJECTS/PATIENTS: The discrete choice experiment was administered to 41 participants who had experienced hip fracture (mean age 79.3 years; standard deviation (SD) 7.5 years), recruited from a larger feasibility study exploring a new multidisciplinary rehabilitation for hip fracture. METHODS: Attributes and levels for this discrete choice experiment were identified from a systematic review and focus groups. The questionnaire was administered at the 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Participants indicated a significant preference for a fully-qualified physiotherapist or occupational therapist to deliver the rehabilitation sessions (ß = 0·605, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.462-0.879), and for their rehabilitation session to last less than 90 min (ß = -0.192, 95% CI -0.381 to -0.051). CONCLUSION: The design of the discrete choice experiment using attributes associated with service configuration could have the potential to inform service implementation, and assist rehabilitation service design that incorporates the preferences of patients.

Development of an intervention to expedite cancer diagnosis through primary care: a protocol.

BACKGROUND: GPs can play an important role in achieving earlier cancer diagnosis to improve patient outcomes, for example through prompt use of the urgent suspected cancer referral pathway. Barriers to early diagnosis include individual practitioner variation in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, professional expectations, and norms. AIM: This programme of work (Wales Interventions and Cancer Knowledge about Early Diagnosis [WICKED]) will develop a behaviour change intervention to expedite diagnosis through primary care and contribute to improved cancer outcomes. DESIGN & SETTING: Non-experimental mixed-method study with GPs and primary care practice teams from Wales. METHOD: Four work packages will inform the development of the behaviour change intervention. Work package 1 will identify relevant evidence-based interventions (systematic review of reviews) and will determine why interventions do or do not work, for whom, and in what circumstances (realist review). Work package 2 will assess cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviour of GPs, as well as primary care teams' perspectives on cancer referral and investigation (GP survey, discrete choice experiment [DCE], interviews, and focus groups). Work package 3 will synthesise findings from earlier work packages using the behaviour change wheel as an overarching theoretical framework to guide intervention development. Work package 4 will test the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention, and determine methods for measuring costs and effects of subsequent behaviour change in a randomised feasibility trial. RESULTS: The findings will inform the design of a future effectiveness trial, with concurrent economic evaluation, aimed at earlier diagnosis. CONCLUSION: This comprehensive, evidence-based programme will develop a complex GP behaviour change intervention to expedite the diagnosis of symptomatic cancer, and may be applicable to countries with similar healthcare systems.

Patient understanding and acceptability of an early lung cancer diagnosis trial: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The ELCID (Early Lung Cancer Investigation and Diagnosis) trial was a feasibility randomised controlled trial examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of lowering the threshold for referral for urgent chest x-ray for smokers and recent ex-smokers, aged over 60 years with new chest symptoms. The qualitative component aimed to explore the feasibility of individually randomising patients to an urgent chest x-ray or not and to investigate any barriers to patient recruitment and participation. We integrated this within the feasibility trial to inform the design of any future definitive trial, particularly in view of the lack of research exploring symptomatic patients' experiences of participating in diagnostic trials for possible/suspected lung cancer. Although previous studies contributed valuable information concerning screening for lung cancer and patient participation in trials, this paper is the first to explore issues relating to this specific patient group. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 21 patients, comprising 9 who had been randomised to receive an immediate chest x-ray, 10 who were randomised to receive the standard treatment according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, and 2 who chose not to participate in the trial. Interviews were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: The findings of this analysis showed that altruism, personal benefit and the reassurance of not having lung cancer were important factors in patient participation. However, patients largely believed that being in the intervention arm was more beneficial, highlighting a lack of understanding of clinical equipoise. Disincentives to participation in the trial included the stigmatisation of patients who smoked (given the inclusion criteria). Although the majority of patients reported that they were happy with the trial design, there was evidence of poor understanding. Last, for several patients, placing trust in health professionals was preferred to understanding the trial processes. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of a qualitative study focusing on participant experience as a secondary outcome of a feasibility trial enabled exploration of patient response to participation and recruitment. The study demonstrated that although it is feasible to recruit patients to the ELCID trial, more work needs to be done to ensure an understanding of study principles and also of smoking stigmatisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01344005 . Registered on 27 April 2011.

PET-PANC: multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and health economic analysis study of the impact of combined modality 18fluorine-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography with computed tomography scanning in the diagnosis and management of pancreatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer diagnosis and staging can be difficult in 10-20% of patients. Positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) adds precise anatomical localisation to functional data. The use of PET/CT may add further value to the diagnosis and staging of pancreatic cancer. OBJECTIVE: To determine the incremental diagnostic accuracy and impact of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up in patients with suspected pancreatic cancer. DESIGN: A multicentre prospective diagnostic accuracy and clinical value study of PET/CT in suspected pancreatic malignancy. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with suspected pancreatic malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: All patients to undergo PET/CT following standard diagnostic work-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in addition to standard diagnostic work-up with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT). Secondary outcomes were (1) changes in patients' diagnosis, staging and management as a result of PET/CT; (2) changes in the costs and effectiveness of patient management as a result of PET/CT; (3) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in chronic pancreatitis; (4) the identification of groups of patients who would benefit most from PET/CT; and (5) the incremental diagnostic value of PET/CT in other pancreatic tumours. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2013, 589 patients with suspected pancreatic cancer underwent MDCT and PET/CT, with 550 patients having complete data and in-range PET/CT. Sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer were 88.5% and 70.6%, respectively, for MDCT and 92.7% and 75.8%, respectively, for PET/CT. The maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax.) for a pancreatic cancer diagnosis was 7.5. PET/CT demonstrated a significant improvement in relative sensitivity (p = 0.01) and specificity (p = 0.023) compared with MDCT. Incremental likelihood ratios demonstrated that PET/CT significantly improved diagnostic accuracy in all scenarios (p < 0.0002). PET/CT correctly changed the staging of pancreatic cancer in 56 patients (p = 0.001). PET/CT influenced management in 250 (45%) patients. PET/CT stopped resection in 58 (20%) patients who were due to have surgery. The benefit of PET/CT was limited in patients with chronic pancreatitis or other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT was associated with a gain in quality-adjusted life-years of 0.0157 (95% confidence interval -0.0101 to 0.0430). In the base-case model PET/CT was seen to dominate MDCT alone and is thus highly likely to be cost-effective for the UK NHS. PET/CT was seen to be most cost-effective for the subgroup of patients with suspected pancreatic cancer who were thought to be resectable. CONCLUSION: PET/CT provided a significant incremental diagnostic benefit in the diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and significantly influenced the staging and management of patients. PET/CT had limited utility in chronic pancreatitis and other pancreatic tumours. PET/CT is likely to be cost-effective at current reimbursement rates for PET/CT to the UK NHS. This was not a randomised controlled trial and therefore we do not have any information from patients who would have undergone MDCT only for comparison. In addition, there were issues in estimating costs for PET/CT. Future work should evaluate the role of PET/CT in intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm and prognosis and response to therapy in patients with pancreatic cancer. STUDY REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73852054 and UKCRN 8166. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Prioritising wheelchair services for children: a pilot discrete choice experiment to understand how child wheelchair users and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 95 million children worldwide are disabled; 10 % use a wheelchair. In the UK, an estimated 770,000 children are disabled. National Health Service Wheelchair Services are the largest provider of wheelchairs in the UK; however, recent reports have highlighted issues with these services. This study explores the use of discrete choice experiment methods to inform wheelchair service provision for disabled children based on service user preferences. The aim was to explore how disabled children and their parents prioritise different attributes of wheelchair services. The secondary aims were to compare priorities between parents and disabled children and to explore marginal rate of substitution for incremental changes in attributes. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments are a method of attribute-based stated preference valuation used by health economists to understand how individuals prioritise different attributes of healthcare services and treatments. We conducted the first pilot discrete choice experiment to explore how disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and their parents prioritise different attributes of hypothetical wheelchair services. Eleven disabled children (aged 11 to 18) and 30 parents of disabled children completed eight pairwise choice tasks based on five service attributes: wheelchair assessment, cost contribution, training, delivery time and frequency of review. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression. For each pairwise choice, the participants were asked to choose which service scenario (A or B) they preferred. RESULTS: Comprehensiveness of wheelchair assessment and wheelchair delivery time significantly (P < 0.05) affected service preferences of children (ß-coefficients = 1.43 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.42 to 2.08] and -0.92 [95 % bootstrapped CI = -1.41 to -0.84], respectively) and parents (ß-coefficients = 1.53 [95 % bootstrapped CI = 1.45 to 2.16] and -1.37 [95 % bootstrapped CI = -1.99 to -1.31], respectively). Parents were willing to contribute more financially to receive preferred services, although this was non-significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both samples placed the greatest importance on holistic wheelchair assessments encompassing more than health. The National Health Service should consider using discrete choice experiment methods to examine wheelchair service preferences of disabled children (aged 11 and over) and their parents on a wider scale; however, care must be taken to ensure that this method is used appropriately.

Conducting Economic Evaluations Alongside Randomised Trials: Current Methodological Issues and Novel Approaches.

Trial-based economic evaluations are an important aspect of health technology assessment. The availability of patient-level data coupled with unbiased estimates of clinical outcomes means that randomised controlled trials are effective vehicles for the generation of economic data. However there are methodological challenges to trial-based evaluations, including the collection of reliable data on resource use and cost, choice of health outcome measure, calculating minimally important differences, dealing with missing data, extrapolating outcomes and costs over time and the analysis of multinational trials. This review focuses on the state of the art of selective elements regarding the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of trial-based economic evaluations. The limitations of existing approaches are detailed and novel methods introduced. The review is internationally relevant but with a focus towards practice in the UK.

Trial of Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (TOPCAT-G): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Gynaecological cancers are diagnosed in over 1000 women in Wales every year. We estimate that this is costing the National Health Service (NHS) in excess of £1 million per annum for routine follow-up appointments alone. Follow-up care is not evidence-based, and there are no definitive guidelines from The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) for the type of follow-up that should be delivered. Standard care is to provide a regular medical review of the patient in a hospital-based outpatient clinic for a minimum of 5 years. This study is to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed alternative where the patients are delivered a specialist nurse-led telephone intervention known as Optimal Personalised Care After Treatment for Gynaecological cancer (OPCAT-G), which comprised of a protocol-based patient education, patient empowerment and structured needs assessment. METHODS: The study will recruit female patients who have completed treatment for cervical, endometrial, epithelial ovarian or vulval cancer within the previous 3 months in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) in North Wales. Following recruitment, participants will be randomised to one of two arms in the trial (standard care or OPCAT-G intervention). The primary outcomes for the trial are patient recruitment and attrition rates, and the secondary outcomes are quality of life, health status and capability, using the EORTC QLQ-C30, EQ-5D-3L and ICECAP-A measures. Additionally, a client service receipt inventory (CSRI) will be collected in order to pilot an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The results from this feasibility study will be used to inform a fully powered randomised controlled trial to evaluate the difference between standard care and the OPCAT-G intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN45565436.

Cost-effectiveness of steroid (methylprednisolone) injections versus anaesthetic alone for the treatment of Morton's neuroma: economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial (MortISE trial).

BACKGROUND: Morton's neuroma is a common foot condition affecting health-related quality of life. Though its management frequently includes steroid injections, evidence of cost-effectiveness is sparse. So, we aimed to evaluate whether steroid injection is cost-effective in treating Morton's neuroma compared with anaesthetic injection alone. METHODS: We undertook incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from the perspective of the National Health Service, alongside a patient-blinded pragmatic randomised trial in hospital-based orthopaedic outpatient clinics in Edinburgh, UK. Of the original randomised sample of 131 participants with Morton's neuroma (including 67 controls), economic analysis focused on 109 (including 55 controls). Both groups received injections guided by ultrasound. We estimated the incremental cost per point improvement in the area under the curve of the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT-AUC) until three months after injection. We also conducted cost-utility analyses using European Quality of life-5 Dimensions-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), enhanced by the Foot Health Thermometer (FHT), to estimate utility and thus quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). RESULTS: The unit cost of an ultrasound-guided steroid injection was £149. Over the three months of follow-up, the mean cost of National Health Service resources was £280 for intervention participants and £202 for control participants - a difference of £79 [bootstrapped 95% confidence interval (CI): £18 to £152]. The corresponding estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £32 per point improvement in the FHT-AUC (bootstrapped 95% CI: £7 to £100). If decision makers value improvement of one point at £100 (the upper limit of this CI), there is 97.5% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective. As EQ-5D-3L seems unresponsive to changes in foot health, we based secondary cost-utility analysis on the FHT-enhanced EQ-5D. This estimated the corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio as £6,400 per QALY. Over the recommended UK threshold, ranging from £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, there is 80%-85% probability that steroid injection is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Steroid injections are effective and cost-effective in relieving foot pain measured by the FHT for three months. However, cost-utility analysis was initially inconclusive because the EQ-5D-3L is less responsive than the FHT to changes in foot health. By using the FHT to enhance the EQ-5D, we inferred that injections yield good value in cost per QALY. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13668166.

Methylprednisolone injections for the treatment of Morton neuroma: a patient-blinded randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Morton neuroma is a common cause of neuralgia affecting the web spaces of the toes. Corticosteroid injections are commonly administered as a first-line therapy, but the evidence for their effectiveness is weak. Our primary research aim was to determine whether corticosteroid injection is an effective treatment for Morton neuroma compared with an anesthetic injection as a placebo control. METHODS: We performed a pragmatic, patient-blinded randomized trial set within hospital orthopaedic outpatient clinics in Edinburgh, United Kingdom. One hundred and thirty-one participants with Morton neuroma (mean age, fifty-three years; 111 [85%] female) were randomized to receive either corticosteroid and anesthetic (1 mL methylprednisolone [40 mg] and 1 mL 2% lignocaine) or anesthetic alone (2 mL 1% lignocaine). An ultrasonographic image was obtained before treatment, and injections were performed with the needle placed under ultrasonographic guidance. The primary outcome was the difference in patient global assessment of foot health between the two groups at three months after injection. This was measured with use of a 100-unit visual analog scale (VAS) anchored by "best imaginable health state" and "worst imaginable health state." RESULTS: Compared with the control group, global assessment of foot health in the corticosteroid group was significantly better at three months (mean difference, 14.1 scale points [95% confidence interval, 5.5 to 22.8 points]; p = 0.002). The difference between the groups was also significant at one month. Significant and nonsignificant improvements associated with the corticosteroid injection were observed for measures of pain, function, and patient global assessment of general health at one and three months after injection. The size of the neuroma as determined by ultrasonography did not significantly influence the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: Corticosteroid injections for Morton neuroma can be of symptomatic benefit for at least three months.

A feasibility study examining the effect on lung cancer diagnosis of offering a chest X-ray to higher-risk patients with chest symptoms: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In order to improve lung cancer survival in the UK, a greater proportion of resectable cancers must be diagnosed. It is likely that resectability rates would be increased by more timely diagnosis. Aside from screening, the only way of achieving this is to reduce the time to diagnosis in symptomatic cancers. Currently, lung cancers are mainly diagnosed by general practitioners (GPs) using the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray, which recommend urgent imaging or referral for patients who have one of a number of chest symptoms for more than 3 weeks. We are proposing to expand this recommendation to include one of a number of chest symptoms of any duration in higher-risk patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We intend to conduct a trial of imaging in these higher-risk patients and compare it with NICE guidelines to see if imaging improves stage at diagnosis and resection rates. This trial would have to be large (and consequently resource-intensive) because most of these patients will not have lung cancer, making optimal design crucial. We are therefore conducting a pilot trial that will ascertain the feasibility of running a full trial and provide key information that will be required in order to design the full trial. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the feasibility and inform the design of a large, UK-wide, clinical trial of a change to the NICE guidelines for urgent referral for chest X-ray for suspected lung cancer. It utilizes a combination of workshop, health economic, quality of life, qualitative, and quantitative methods in order to fully assess feasibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01344005.