Research priorities for young people with cancer: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a UK-wide survey of young people who have experienced cancer, carers and professionals, to identify and prioritise research questions to inform decisions of research funders and support the case for research with this unique cancer population. DESIGN: James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. SETTING: UK health service and community. METHODS: A steering group oversaw the initiative and partner organisations were recruited. Unanswered questions were collected in an online survey. Evidence searching verified uncertainties. An interim survey was used to rank questions prior to a final prioritisation workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Young people aged 13-24 years with a current or previous cancer diagnosis, their families, friends, partners and professionals who work with this population. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-two respondents submitted 855 potential questions. Following a refining process and removal of 'out of scope' questions, 208 unique questions remained. Systematic evidence checking identified seven answered questions and 16 were the subject of ongoing studies. The interim survey was completed by 174 participants. The top 30 questions were prioritised at a workshop attended by 25 young people, parents and multidisciplinary professionals. The top three priorities are: (1) What psychological support package improves psychological well-being, social functioning and mental health during and after treatment? (2) What interventions, including self-care, can reduce or reverse adverse short-term and long-term effects of cancer treatment? (3) What are the best strategies to improve access to clinical trials? The remaining questions reflect the complete cancer pathway: new therapies, life after cancer, support, education/employment, relapse and end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: We have identified shared research priorities for young people with cancer using a rigorous, person-centred approach involving stakeholders typically not involved in setting the research agenda. The breadth of priorities suggest future research should focus on holistic and psychosocial care delivery as well as traditional drug/biology research.

Excellent outcome of matched unrelated donor transplantation in paediatric aplastic anaemia following failure with immunosuppressive therapy: a United Kingdom multicentre retrospective experience.

We retrospectively analysed the outcome of consecutive children with idiopathic severe aplastic anaemia in the United Kingdom who received immunosuppressive therapy (IST) or matched unrelated donor (MUD) haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). The 6-month cumulative response rate following rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG)/ciclosporin (IST) was 32·5% (95% CI 19·3-46·6) (n = 43). The 5-year estimated failure-free survival (FFS) following IST was 13·3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4·0-27·8). In contrast, in 44 successive children who received a 10-antigen (HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, -DQB1) MUD HSCT there was an excellent estimated 5-year FFS of 95·01% (95% CI 81·38-98·74). Forty of these children had failed IST previously. HSCT conditioning was a fludarabine, cyclophosphamide and alemtuzumab (FCC) regimen and did not include radiotherapy. There were no cases of graft failure. Median donor chimerism was 100% (range 88-100%). A conditioning regimen, such as FCC that avoids total body irradiation is ideally suited in children. Our data suggest that MUD HSCT following IST failure offers an excellent outcome and furthermore, if a suitable MUD can be found quickly, MUD HSCT may be a reasonable alternative to IST.