Factors influencing participation in randomised clinical trials among patients with early Barrett's neoplasia: a multicentre interview study.

OBJECTIVES: Strong recruitment and retention into randomised controlled trials involving invasive therapies is a matter of priority to ensure better achievement of trial aims. The BRIDE (Barrett's Randomised Intervention for Dysplasia by Endoscopy) Study investigated the feasibility of undertaking a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing argon plasma coagulation and radiofrequency ablation, following endoscopic resection, for the management of early Barrett's neoplasia. This paper aims to identify factors influencing patients' participation in the BRIDE Study and determine their views regarding acceptability of a potential future trial comparing surgery with endotherapy. DESIGN: A semistructured telephone interview study was performed, including both patients who accepted and declined to participate in the BRIDE trial. Interview data were analysed using the constant comparison approach to identify recurring themes. SETTING: Interview participants were recruited from across six UK tertiary centres where the BRIDE trial was conducted. PARTICIPANTS: We interviewed 18 participants, including 11 participants in the BRIDE trial and 7 who declined. RESULTS: Four themes were identified centred around interviewees' decision to accept or decline participation in the BRIDE trial and a potential future trial comparing endotherapy with surgery: (1) influence of the recruitment process and participant-recruiter relationship; (2) participants' views of the design and aim of the study; (3) conditional altruism as a determining factor and (4) participants' perceptions of surgical risks versus less invasive treatments. CONCLUSION: We identified four main influences to optimising recruitment and retention to a randomised controlled trial comparing endotherapies in patients with early Barrett's-related neoplasia. These findings highlight the importance of qualitative research to inform the design of larger randomised controlled trials.

Use of routinely collected health data in randomised clinical trials: comparison of trial-specific death data in the BOSS trial with NHS Digital data.

BACKGROUND: A promising approach to reduce the increasing costs of clinical trials is the use of routinely collected health data as participant data. However, the quality of this data could limit its usability as trial participant data. METHODS: The BOSS trial is a randomised controlled trial comparing regular endoscopies versus endoscopies at need in patients with Barrett's oesophagus with primary endpoint death. Data on death and cancer collected every 2 years after randomisation (trial-specific data) were compared to data received annually (all patients on one date) from the routinely collected health data source National Health Service (NHS) Digital. We investigated completeness, agreement and timeliness and looked at the implications for the primary trial outcome. Completeness and agreement were assessed by evaluating the number of reported and missing cases and any disparities between reported dates. Timeliness was considered by graphing the year a death was first reported in the trial-specific data against that for NHS Digital data. Implications on the primary trial outcome, overall survival, of using one of the data sources alone were investigated using Kaplan-Meier graphs. To assess the utility of cause of death and cancer diagnoses, oesophageal cancer cases were compared. RESULTS: NHS Digital datasets included more deaths and often reported them sooner than the trial-specific data. The number reported as being from oesophageal cancer was similar in both datasets. Due to time lag in reporting and missing cases, the event rate appeared higher using the NHS Digital data. CONCLUSION: NHS Digital death data is useful for calculating overall survival where trial-specific follow-up is only every 2 years from randomisation and the follow-up requires patient response. The cancer data was not a large enough sample to assess usability. We suggest that this assessment of registry data is done for more phase III RCTs and for more registry data to get a more complete picture of when RCHD would be useful in phase III RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN54190466 (BOSS) 1 Oct 2009.

BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities (the B-ADENOMA Study): a multicentre, randomised controlled flexible sigmoidoscopy trial.

OBJECTIVES: Adenoma detection rate (ADR) is an important quality marker at lower GI endoscopy. Higher ADRs are associated with lower postcolonoscopy colorectal cancer rates. The English flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening programme (BowelScope), offers a one-off FS to individuals aged 55 years. However, variation in ADR exists. Large studies have demonstrated improved ADR using Endocuff Vision (EV) within colonoscopy screening, but there are no studies within FS. We sought to test the effect of EV on ADR in a national FS screening population. DESIGN: BowelScope: Accuracy of Detection Using ENdocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial involving 16 English BowelScope screening centres. Individuals were randomised to Endocuff Vision-assisted BowelScope (EAB) or Standard BowelScope (SB). ADR, polyp detection rate (PDR), mean adenomas per procedure (MAP), polyp characteristics and location, participant experience, procedural time and adverse events were measured. Comparison of ADR within the trial with national BowelScope ADR was also undertaken. RESULTS: 3222 participants were randomised (53% male) to receive EAB (n=1610) or SB (n=1612). Baseline demographics were comparable between arms. ADR in the EAB arm was 13.3% and that in the SB arm was 12.2% (p=0.353). No statistically significant differences were found in PDR, MAP, polyp characteristics or location, participant experience, complications or procedural characteristics. ADR in the SB control arm was 3.1% higher than the national ADR. CONCLUSION: EV did not improve BowelScope ADR when compared with SB. ADR in both arms was higher than the national ADR. Where detection rates are already high, EV is unable to improve detection further. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03072472, ISRCTN30005319 and CPMS ID 33224.

Radiofrequency ablation compared with argon plasma coagulation after endoscopic resection of high-grade dysplasia or stage T1 adenocarcinoma in Barrett's esophagus: a randomized pilot study (BRIDE).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Endoscopic resection (ER) is safe and effective for Barrett's esophagus (BE) containing high-grade dysplasia (HGD) or mucosal adenocarcinoma (T1A). The risk of metachronous neoplasia is reduced by ablation of residual BE by using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) or argon plasma coagulation (APC). These have not been compared directly. We aimed to recruit up to 100 patients with BE and HGD or T1A confirmed by ER over 1 year in 6 centers in a randomized pilot study. METHODS: Randomization was 1:1 to RFA or APC (4 treatments allowed at 2-month intervals). Recruitment, retention, dysplasia clearance, clearance of benign BE, adverse events, healthcare costs, and quality of life by using EQ-5D, EORTC QLQ-C30, or OES18 were assessed up to the end of the trial at 12 months. RESULTS: Of 171 patients screened, 76 were randomized to RFA (n = 36) or APC (n = 40). The mean age was 69.7 years, and 82% were male. BE was <5 cm (n = 27), 5 to 10 cm (n = 45), and >10 cm (n = 4). Sixty-five patients completed the trial. At 12 months, dysplasia clearance was RFA 79.4% and APC 83.8% (odds ratio [OR] 0.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-2.6); BE clearance was RFA 55.8%, and APC 48.3% (OR 1.4; 95% CI, 0.5-3.6). A total of 6.1% (RFA) and 13.3% (APC) had buried BE glands. Adverse events (including stricture rate after starting RFA 3/36 [8.3%] and APC 3/37 [8.1%]) and quality of life scores were similar, but RFA cost $27491 more per case than APC. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests similar efficacy and safety but a cost difference favoring APC. A fully powered non-inferiority trial is appropriate to confirm these findings. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01733719.).

The B-ADENOMA Study: Bowelscope - Accuracy of Detection using Endocuff Optimisation of Mucosal Abnormalities: Study Protocol for randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: UK Bowel Cancer Screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope) currently offers patients aged 55 a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy for adenoma clearance to decrease colorectal cancer incidence by interrupting the adenoma-carcinoma sequence. Recent evidence has shown maximum benefit in increasing adenoma detection rate (ADR) using the Endocuff Vision device in the left side of the colon and in screening patients. Currently, ADR is low and shows unacceptable variation in BowelScope. ADR is a quality indicator in screening sigmoidoscopy and higher rates have been shown to reduce colorectal cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This will be a prospective, multicenter, UK-based randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing ADR in Endocuff-assisted versus standard bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy (BowelScope). All patients aged 55 to 61 years invited to BowelScope screening and able to give informed consent will be eligible for recruitment. Exclusion criteria include absolute contraindications to flexible sigmoidoscopy, known or suspected large bowel obstruction or pseudo-obstruction, colonic strictures or polyposis syndromes, known severe diverticular segment, active colitis, inability to give informed consent, anticoagulation precluding polypectomy and pregnancy. Patients will be randomized on the day of procedure to Endocuff-assisted flexible sigmoidoscopy or standard flexible sigmoidoscopy, stratified by age group and sex. Baseline, endoscopy and polyp data were collected as well as nurse and patient assessment of comfort. Polyp histology was collected when available. Patients will be asked to return a comfort questionnaire the following day and were followed up for 14 days for complications. RESULTS: The ADENOMA trial will be designed to demonstrate a significant improvement in ADR with maximal effect in the left colon and in fecal occult blood test-positive screening patients. This trial will be the first RCT to look at Endocuff Vision in bowel cancer screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. We will aim to establish whether Endocuff vision improves ADR in this population.

Acetic acid-guided biopsies in Barrett's surveillance for neoplasia detection versus non-targeted biopsies (Seattle protocol): A feasibility study for a randomized tandem endoscopy trial. The ABBA study.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Barrett's esophagus is a potentially pre-cancerous condition, affecting 375,000 people in the UK. Patients receive a 2-yearly endoscopy to detect cancerous changes, as early detection and treatment results in better outcomes. Current treatment requires random mapping biopsies along the length of Barrett's, in addition to biopsy of visible abnormalities. As only 13 % of pre-cancerous changes appear as visible nodules or abnormalities, areas of dysplasia are often missed. Acetic acid chromoendoscopy (AAC) has been shown to improve detection of pre-cancerous and cancerous tissue in observational studies, but no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed to date. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A "tandem" endoscopy cross-over design. Participants will be randomized to endoscopy using mapping biopsies or AAC, in which dilute acetic acid is sprayed onto the surface of the esophagus, highlighting tissue through an whitening reaction and enhancing visibility of areas with cellular changes for biopsy. After 4 to 10 weeks, participants will undergo a repeat endoscopy, using the second method. Rates of recruitment and retention will be assessed, in addition to the estimated dysplasia detection rate, effectiveness of the endoscopist training program, and rates of adverse events (AEs). Qualitative interviews will explore participant and endoscopist acceptability of study design and delivery, and the acceptability of switching endoscopic techniques for Barrett's surveillance. RESULTS: Endoscopists' ability to diagnose dysplasia in Barrett's esophagus can be improved. AAC may offer a simple, universally applicable, easily-acquired technique to improve detection, affording patients earlier diagnosis and treatment, reducing endoscopy time and pathology costs. The ABBA study will determine whether a crossover "tandem" endoscopy design is feasible and acceptable to patients and clinicians and gather outcome data to power a definitive trial.

Barrett's Oesophagus Surveillance versus endoscopy at need Study (BOSS): protocol and analysis plan for a multicentre randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: The absolute annual risk of patients with Barrett's oesophagus (BO) developing oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is ≤ 0.5%. Screening BO patients for malignant progression using endoscopic surveillance is widely practised. To assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of this, we developed a protocol for a randomized controlled trial of surveillance versus 'at need' endoscopy. METHODS: In a multicentre trial, 3400 BO patients randomized to either 2-yearly endoscopic surveillance or 'at need' endoscopy will be followed up for 10 years. Urgent endoscopy will be offered to all patients who develop symptoms of dysphagia, unexplained weight loss > 7lb (3.2 kg), iron deficiency anaemia, recurrent vomiting, or worsening upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Participants must have endoscopically and histologically confirmed BO, with circumferential BO ≥ 1 cm or maximal tongue/island length ≥ 2 cm. Candidates with existing oesophageal high-grade dysplasia or cancer, or previous upper gastrointestinal cancer will be excluded. Primary outcome will be overall survival. Secondary outcomes will be cost effectiveness (cost per life year saved and quality adjusted life years); cancer-specific survival; time to OAC diagnosis and stage at diagnosis; morbidity and mortality related to any interventions; and frequency of endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: This randomized trial will provide data to evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of screening BO patients for OAC.