Dexamethasone-sparing on days 2-4 with combined palonosetron, neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, and olanzapine in cisplatin: a randomized phase III trial (SPARED Trial).

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the non-inferiority of dexamethasone (DEX) on day 1, with sparing on days 2-4 in cisplatin-based chemotherapy. METHODS: Patients with malignant solid tumors who were treated with cisplatin (≥50 mg/m²) were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either DEX on days 1-4 (Arm D4) or DEX on day 1 (Arm D1) plus palonosetron, NK-1 RA, and olanzapine (5 mg). The primary endpoint was complete response (CR) during the delayed (24-120 h) phase. The non-inferiority margin was set at -15%. RESULTS: A total of 281 patients were enrolled, 278 of whom were randomly assigned to Arm D4 (n = 139) or Arm D1 (n = 139). In 274 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, the rates of delayed CR in Arms D4 and D1 were 79.7% and 75.0%, respectively (risk difference -4.1%; 95% CI -14.1%-6.0%, P = 0.023). However, patients in Arm D1 had significantly lower total control rates during the delayed and overall phases, and more frequent nausea and appetite loss. There were no significant between-arm differences in the quality of life. CONCLUSION: DEX-sparing is an alternative option for patients receiving cisplatin; however, this revised administration schedule should be applied on an individual basis after a comprehensive evaluation. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRY NUMBER: UMIN000032269.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.

BACKGROUND: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making. METHODS: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria. RESULTS: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes". CONCLUSIONS: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

Optimizing smartphone psychotherapy for depressive symptoms in patients with cancer: Multiphase optimization strategy using a decentralized multicenter randomized clinical trial (J-SUPPORT 2001 Study).

AIM: Patients with cancer experience various forms of psychological distress, including depressive symptoms, which can impact quality of life, elevate morbidity risk, and increase medical costs. Psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy are effective for reducing depressive symptoms among patients with cancer, but most patients prefer psychotherapy. This study aimed to develop an efficient and effective smartphone psychotherapy component to address depressive symptom. METHODS: This was a decentralized, parallel-group, multicenter, open, individually randomized, fully factorial trial. Patients aged ≥20 years with cancer were randomized by the presence/absence of three cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) skills (behavioral activation [BA], assertiveness training [AT], and problem-solving [PS]) on a smartphone app. All participants received psychoeducation (PE). The primary outcome was change in the patient health questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) total score between baseline and week 8. Secondary outcomes included anxiety. RESULTS: In total, 359 participants were randomized. Primary outcome data at week 8 were obtained for 355 participants (99%). The week 8 PHQ-9 total score was significantly reduced from baseline for all participants by -1.41 points (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.89, -0.92), but between-group differences in change scores were not significant (BA: -0.04, 95% CI -0.75, 0.67; AT: -0.16, 95% CI -0.87, 0.55; PS: -0.19, 95% CI -0.90, 0.52). CONCLUSION: As the presence of any of the three intervention components did not contribute to a significant additive reduction of depressive symptoms, we cannot make evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of specific smartphone psychotherapy.

Protocol for a confirmatory trial of the effectiveness and safety of palliative arterial embolization for painful bone metastases.

BACKGROUND: Transcatheter arterial embolization (TAE) has long been used for hemostasis of traumatic or postoperative hemorrhage and embolization of tumors. Previous retrospective studies of TAE for painful bone metastases showed 60%-80% pain reduction with a median time to response of 1-2 days. Compared with radiotherapy and bisphosphonates, time to response appeared earlier than that of radiotherapy or bone-modifying agents. However, few prospective studies have examined TAE for this indication. Here, we describe the protocol for a confirmatory study designed to clarify the efficacy and safety profile of TAE. METHODS: This study will be a multicenter, single-arm confirmatory study (phase 2-3 design). Patients with painful bone metastases from any primary tumor are eligible for enrollment. TAE will be the main intervention. Following puncture of the femoral artery under local anesthesia and insertion of an angiographic sheath, angiography will confirm that the injected region includes tumor vasculature. Catheter position will be adjusted so that the embolization range does not include non-target tissues. Spherical embolic material will then be slowly injected into the artery to embolize it. The primary endpoint (efficacy) is the proportion of subjects with pain relief at 72 h after TAE and the secondary endpoint (safety) is the incidence of all NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 5.0 Grade 4 adverse events and Grade ≥ 3 necrosis of the central nervous system. DISCUSSION: If the primary and secondary endpoints are met, TAE can be a treatment choice for painful bone metastases. Trial registry number is UMIN-CTR ID: UMIN000040794. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is ongoing, and patients are currently being enrolled. Enrollment started in March 2021. A total of 36 patients have participated as of Aug 2022. PROTOCOL VERSION: Ver1.4, 13/07/2022.

Patient-reported outcome and quality of life research policy: Japan Clinical Oncology Group (JCOG) policy.

Assessments of patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in cancer clinical trials have been increasingly emphasized recently because patient and public involvement in cancer treatment development has been promoted by regulatory authorities and academic societies. To assess patient experiences during and after cancer treatment, there is interest in implementing patient-reported outcome and health-related quality of life assessments into cancer clinical trials. The Japan Clinical Oncology Group quality of life ad hoc committee previously created a version of the Quality of Life Assessment Policy in 2006. Recently, there has been increasing demand from Japan Clinical Oncology Group researchers to assess patient-reported outcome/health-related quality of life in clinical trials. Although guidelines are available regarding planning and reporting clinical trials that include patient-reported outcome/health-related quality of life as an endpoint, there are still issues regarding the lack of consensus on standardized methods for analysing and interpreting the results. Hence, it was considered necessary to reorganize the Japan Clinical Oncology Group patient-reported outcome/quality of life research committee and to revise the former patient-reported outcome/quality of life research policy to promote patient-reported outcome/health-related quality of life research in future Japan Clinical Oncology Group trials. The purpose of this Japan Clinical Oncology Group patient-reported outcome/quality of life research policy is to define patient-reported outcome/health-related quality of life research and provide guidelines for including patient-reported outcome/health-related quality of life as an endpoint in Japan Clinical Oncology Group trials.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Encouraging participation in colorectal cancer screening for people with schizophrenia: A randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the efficacy of a case management approach to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening among people with schizophrenia. METHODS: This was a randomized, parallel group trial. We recruited outpatients with schizophrenia aged 40 years or over from two psychiatric hospitals in Japan. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to treatment as usual or case management intervention plus treatment as usual using a web-based system. Attending clinicians and participants were unmasked to the allocation. Case management included education and patient navigation for colorectal cancer screening using a fecal occult blood test. Treatment as usual included direct mail government recommendations. The primary endpoint was participation in colorectal cancer screening assessed using municipal records. We also assessed the secondary endpoint of participation in other cancer screenings (lung, gastric, breast, and cervical). RESULTS: Between 3 June and 9 September 2019, 172 eligible participants were randomly assigned to the case management plus treatment as usual group (n = 86) or treatment as usual group (n = 86). One participant was ineligible and another withdrew consent; both were excluded from analysis. A significantly higher proportion of participants received colorectal cancer screening in the case management plus treatment as usual group than in the treatment as usual group (40 [47.1%] of 85 participants vs. 10 [11.8%] of 85 participants, p < 0.0001). The proportion of lung cancer screening also increased. No serious adverse events associated with the study intervention occurred. CONCLUSION: The case management intervention to encourage participation in colorectal cancer screening was effective for patients with schizophrenia.

An observational study on nutrition status in gastric cancer patients receiving ramucirumab plus taxane: BALAST study.

Limited data are available regarding the efficacy of nutrition support in advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients receiving a standard second-line combination chemotherapy. The BALAST study is conducted as a prospective, multicenter observational study to evaluate the efficacy of nutrition support for patients with AGC treated with ramucirumab plus taxane as second-line treatment. As part of the routine care, patients who are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition will receive nutrition support from dietitians. We will enroll a total of 26 patients to estimate weight control rate at 12 weeks as primary end point. This study will generate valuable data reinforcing the role of nutrition support therapy for AGC patients receiving second-line chemotherapy.

Lay abstract Various guidelines recommend that nutrition support therapy should be considered if cancer patients are malnourished or at risk of malnutrition. Several studies have revealed that body weight loss, which is an important factor in determining the nutrition status, may predict survival during second-line standard chemotherapy with ramucirumab and a taxane for advanced gastric cancer (AGC) patients. However, limited data are available regarding the efficacy of nutrition support in AGC patients receiving ramucirumab and a taxane. This study is conducted as a prospective, multicenter observational study to evaluate the efficacy of nutrition support for Japanese patients with AGC treated with ramucirumab and a taxane. This study will generate valuable data reinforcing the role of nutrition support therapy for AGC patients in second-line treatment. Clinical trial registration: UMIN000037867.

Patient-generated health data collection using a wearable activity tracker in cancer patients-a feasibility study.

PURPOSE: Incorporation of patient-generated health data (PGHD) into clinical research requires an investigation of the validity of outcomes and feasibility of implementation. This single-arm pilot trial investigated the feasibility of using a commercially available activity tracking wearable device in cancer patients to assess adherence to the device and real-time PGHD collection in a clinical research setting. METHODS: From July to November 2017, enrolled adult patients were asked to wear a wristband-style device. Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) and MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI) were assessed at baseline and on day 29. Furthermore, 29-day Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, global impression of the devices, and NCI CTCAE v4 were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 30 patients (mean age, 58.6 years; male, 21 [70%]), 15 (50%) and 11 (36.7%) had gastrointestinal and lung cancer, respectively, and 27 (90%, 95% CI: 0.74-0.98) were well adhered (> 70%) to the device for 28 days. The mean adherence was 84.9% (range: 41.7-95.2%). More frequent PGHD synchronization tended to show better device adherence, with moderate correlation (r = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.33-0.80, p < 000.1). CONCLUSIONS: The feasibility of using a wearable activity tracker was confirmed in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy for a month. For future implementation in clinical trials, there is a need for further comprehensive assessment of the validity and reliability of wearable activity trackers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was registered at the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry as UMIN: UMIN000027575.

Predictors of duloxetine response in patients with neuropathic cancer pain: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial-JORTC-PAL08 (DIRECT) study.

PURPOSE: Duloxetine has some effect against cancer neuropathic pain (CNP); however, predictors of duloxetine response are unclear. This study sought to identify predictors of duloxetine response in patients with CNP. METHODS: Patients (N = 70) with CNP unresponsive to or intolerant of opioid-pregabalin combination therapy, with a brief pain inventory-short form (BPI-SF) Item 5 score (average pain) ≥ 4, and with a total hospital anxiety and depression scale score < 20, were randomized to a duloxetine or a placebo group. Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to identify predictors of duloxetine response as a secondary analysis with the change in the average pain score on day 10 from day 0 as the dependent variable, and the following five covariates; baseline (day 0) average pain score, baseline opioid dose, continuation/discontinuation of pregabalin, and items 20 and 21 score of the short-form McGill pain questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2) as independent variables. RESULTS: Of the four domains (continuous pain, intermittent pain, neuropathic pain, and affective descriptors) score of SF-MPQ-2 on day 0, significant differences were observed in the neuropathic pain domain (p = 0.040) in change on the average pain between day 10 and day 0 in the duloxetine group. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 (tingling pain) on day 0 had a significantly greater change in average pain between day 10 and day 0 (p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: Patients with a high score for SF-MPQ-2 Item 21 might benefit more from duloxetine.

A comparison between 2- and 3-dimensional approaches to solid component measurement as radiological criteria for sublobar resection in lung adenocarcinoma ≤ 2 cm in size.

PURPOSE: We compared three-dimensional (3D) and two-dimensional (2D) measurements of the solid component to determine radiological criteria for sublobar resection of lung adenocarcinoma ≤ 2 cm in size. METHODS: We included 233 surgical cases. The maximum size of the solid component for 3D measurement was calculated by delineating the solid component on successive axial images and reconstructing the 3D surface model. RESULTS: The predictive performance for adenocarcinoma in situ (n = 43) and minimally invasive adenocarcinoma (n = 77) were equivalent to areas under the curve of 0.871 and 0.857 for 2D and 3D measurements (p = 0.229), respectively. A solid component of 5 mm had a prognostic impact on both measurements ( ≤ 5 mm versus > 5 mm; p = 0.003 for 2D and p = 0.002 for 3D, log-rank test). Survival rates at 5 years were 94.7-96.9% following lobectomy and sublobar resection among patients with a solid component ≤ 5 mm in size. Sublobar resection resulted in worse survival rates, with declines at 5 years of 15.8% on 2D and 11.5% on 3D measurements, than lobectomy in patients with a solid component > 5 mm in size. CONCLUSIONS: A solid component ≤ 5 mm in size is an appropriate criterion for sublobar resection for both measurements. In addition, 2D measurement is justified because of its simple implementation.

[Patient Reported Outcome(PRO)in Oncology].

In recent years, the importance of patient-reported outcomes(PRO)in addition to clinician-outcome assessment has been particularly recognized in clinical trials and routine clinical care of practice. PRO is defined as "any report of the status of a patient's health condition that comes directly from the patient, without interpretation of the patient's response by a clinician or anyone else". For example, in oncology field, NCI-CTCAE has conventionally been used for adverse event assessment. However, it has been pointed out that the adverse event reported by medical staffs tends to underestimate as compared by patients themselves. Hence, PRO version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events(PRO-CTCAE), is expected to play an important role. In this article, the background of importance of PRO in oncology, the role of PRO in clinical outcome assessments, the difference between PRO and QOL, significance that PRO evaluation brings to patients and clinical practice, PRO-CTCAE and recent methodology of PRO research will be overviewed.

Topical steroid versus placebo for the prevention of radiation dermatitis in head and neck cancer patients receiving chemoradiotherapy: the study protocol of J-SUPPORT 1602 (TOPICS study), a randomized double-blinded phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: To date, the clinical benefit of topical steroid use has only been demonstrated for radiation dermatitis induced by 50-60 Gy irradiation in breast cancer. However, these agents are also often used clinically for the control of radiation dermatitis induced by high-dose (>60Gy) irradiation with chemotherapy in head and neck cancer. Despite this, the prophylactic efficacy of topical steroids for radiation dermatitis induced by high-dose irradiation is still unclear. The aim of this study is to clarify the benefit of topical steroids in basic nursing care for radiation dermatitis induced by chemoradiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS: The study is being conducted as a multicenter 2-arm randomized double-blinded placebo-controlled Phase 3 trial in Japan. The study was started in May 2017, with participant enrollment between May 2017 and April 2019. Patients scheduled to receive definitive or postoperative chemoradiotherapy for head and neck cancer are eligible for enrollment. All patients will receive chemoradiotherapy, consisting of single agent CDDP and 70-Gy irradiation. Bilateral neck irradiation is mandatory. Supportive care for radiation dermatitis will consist of basic nursing care with topical steroid or placebo. When radiation dermatitis grade 1 is seen or total radiation dose reaches 30 Gy, minimally required intervention will be started as a first step. If radiation dermatitis worsens to grade 2, the irradiated area will be covered with a moderately absorbent surgical pad and steroid or placebo topical cream. The primary endpoint is a comparison of the proportion of patients with ≥ grade 2 radiation dermatitis by NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) Version 4.0. Ethical approval has been obtained from all participating sites. The results of this study will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and the key findings will be presented at international scientific conferences. DISCUSSION: Evidence supporting the benefit of adding topical steroids in general nursing care for radiation dermatitis induced by high-dose irradiation with chemotherapy is insufficient. This trial aims to clarify the clinical benefit of topical steroid for radiation dermatitis induced by high-dose irradiation with chemotherapy. The trial is ongoing and is currently recruiting. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000027161 . Protocol version 3.0, 18 April 2017.

Efficacy and safety of an amino acid jelly containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine in controlling fatigue in breast cancer patients receiving chemotherapy: a multi-institutional, randomized, exploratory trial (JORTC-CAM01).

PURPOSE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common symptoms reported by cancer patients. This randomized trial investigated the efficacy of the amino acid jelly Inner Power(®) (IP), a semi-solid, orally administrable dietary supplement containing coenzyme Q10 and L-carnitine, in controlling CRF in breast cancer patients in Japan. METHODS: Breast cancer patients with CRF undergoing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to receive IP once daily or regular care for 21 days. The primary endpoint was the change in the worst level of fatigue during the past 24 h (Brief Fatigue Inventory [BFI] item 3 score) from day 1 (baseline) to day 22. Secondary endpoints were change in global fatigue score (GFS; the average of all BFI items), anxiety and depression assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), quality of life assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) and EORTC Breast Cancer-Specific QLQ (EORTC QLQ-BR23), and adverse events. RESULTS: Fifty-nine patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 57 were included in the efficacy analysis. Median patient age was 50 years. Changes in the worst level of fatigue, GFS, and current feeling of fatigue were significantly different between the intervention and control groups, whereas the change in the average feeling of fatigue was not significantly different between groups. HADS, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC QLQ-BR23 scores were not significantly different between the two groups. No severe adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: IP may control moderate-severe CRF in breast cancer patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The registration number of this study in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) is UMIN000008646.

Oral nutritional support can shorten the duration of parenteral hydration in end-of-life cancer patients: a randomized controlled trial.

Tube feeding or hydration is often considered for end-of-life cancer patients despite the negative effects on quality of life. The efficacy of oral nutritional support in this setting is unknown. We conducted a randomized trial to compare the efficacies of an amino acid jelly, Inner Power® (IP), and a liquid enteral product, Ensure Liquid® (EL), in terminally ill cancer patients. We randomly assigned patients to 3 arms: EL, IP, and EL+IP. The primary endpoint was drip infusion in vein (DIV)-free survival, which was defined as the duration from nutritional support initiation to administration of parenteral hydration. Twenty-seven patients were enrolled in the study, of whom 21 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. The median age of the subjects was 69 yr. There were significant differences between the arms with regard to the median DIV-free survival (0.5, 6.0, and 4.5 days in the EL, IP, and EL + IP arms, respectively; P = 0.05). The median overall survival was 7, 9, and 8 days in the EL, IP, and EL + IP arms, respectively. IP may shorten the duration of parenteral hydration in terminally ill cancer patients and does not affect their survival.

The development and analysis of a Japanese modern comprehensive clinical data management training program.

Background: Clinical data management (CDM) collects, integrates, and makes data available. It plays a vital role in clinical research. However, there are few opportunities for Japanese clinical data managers to learn about its systematic framework, particularly in academic research organizations. While Japanese-language CDM training exists, its effectiveness in a Japanese context requires clarification. Objectives: We aimed to develop an advanced program of instruction for professionals to understand CDM and to determine the effectiveness of the training program. Methods and results: We developed an advanced program including risk-based monitoring and the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium on a trial basis for clinical data managers to provide them with a comprehensive understanding of CDM. Fifty-two people attended the program and reported that they were highly satisfied with it. Conclusions: To provide comprehensive CDM training in Japan, it is imperative to continue improving the content and develop an advanced program. Due to the recent tightening of clinical research regulations and the development and dissemination of various systems for conducting clinical research, the competency-based educational program requires further development.

Shared decision-making support program for older patients with advanced cancer using a question prompt list and geriatric assessment: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with cancer are less likely to express their treatment preferences than younger patients. Question prompt lists (QPLs) facilitate communication between patients and physicians. Geriatric assessment (GA) is recommended when older patients with cancer make treatment decisions. This study estimated the effect size of a shared decision-making (SDM) support program combining QPLs with GA in terms of patients' subjective evaluation of the SDM process for a future definitive randomized controlled trial. We also evaluated the number and quality of aging-related communication during consultations, and feasibility and acceptability of the study for exploratory purposes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a pilot study with randomized allocation and blind evaluation. Patients aged 65 years or older at the National Cancer Center Hospital, Tokyo, Japan, scheduled to discuss the changes of their treatment, were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the SDM support program or usual care. This program consisted of 30-60 min of face-to-face coaching, with QPLs and GA provided before the coaching. As the primary endpoint, the decisional conflict scores given by the patients immediately after the consultation were compared between the two groups. For the secondary endpoints, the number and quality of aging-related communications during the consultations were assessed by evaluators (blinded) using audio-recordings. Adherence, burden, and usefulness were assessed for evaluating feasibility and acceptability of the SDM support program. RESULTS: Forty patients were enrolled. All patients completed the GA questionnaire, for which 70% did not require any individual assistance. Answering the questionnaires took approximately 11 min. The decisional conflict scores were mean [standard deviation (SD)]: 19.3 [10.8] vs. 18.0 [11.1] (effect size: Cohen's d = 0.12) for the SDM support program and usual care groups, respectively. The number of aging-related communications during the consultation for the new treatment was higher in the SDM support program group than the usual care (mean [SD]: 3.3 [1.2] vs. 2.2 [1.5], effect size: cohen's d = 1.32). Patients felt that the SDM support program was useful but not burdensome or difficult. DISCUSSION: The SDM support program was considered useful and feasible for older patients and able to facilitate communication regarding aging-related concerns. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study protocol was registered on September 23, 2020, in the UMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN000041867).

Protocol for the ASTRO study (SSOP-01): a multicentre prospective cohort study investigating adverse events based on electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients with breast cancer after adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Symptom-related adverse events associated with perioperative chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer include short-term adverse events such as nausea and vomiting. However, changes in the severity and duration of prolonged symptom-related adverse events have not been fully investigated. We present a protocol of a study that aims to clarify the prevalence of symptom-related adverse events in patients with breast cancer 1 year after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy using an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre prospective observational cohort study will include patients with breast cancer who have received preoperative or postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. The final injection date of the cytotoxic agent will be the study initiation date. Patients will report every 2 weeks from the initiation date to 12 weeks and every 4 weeks from 12 weeks to 1 year, and they can enter this information into the ePRO system from anywhere. The primary outcome will be the prevalence of symptom-related adverse events according to the ePRO system 1 year after the date of the last injection of the cytotoxic drug used in neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer. To increase multi-institutional enrolment, two cohorts will be included. Cohort 1 will comprise patients with acquisition of baseline patient information regarding preoperative chemotherapy and presurgery characteristics. Cohort 2 will comprise patients without acquisition of baseline patient information. The target sample size is ≥250 per year. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol has been approved by the ethics committee at each participating institution. The results will be presented at major national and international conferences and submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL STATUS: Registration was started in October 2021. By August 2022, a total of 132 participants were enrolled. Follow-up will be continued through December 2024. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000045422.

Preoperative steroid for enhancing patients' recovery after head and neck cancer surgery with free tissue transfer reconstruction: protocol for a phase III, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind study (J-SUPPORT 2022, PreSte-HN Study).

INTRODUCTION: There is no established methodology for the perioperative management of head and neck cancer surgery and free tissue transfer reconstruction (HNS-FTR). A single dose of corticosteroid administered immediately before surgery has been shown to reduce postoperative pain and nausea/vomiting after some types of surgery. However, the efficacy of this strategy has not been demonstrated in HNS-FTR, and the increased risk of infectious complications associated with its use cannot be ruled out. This phase III, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, comparative, multicentre study seeks to determine if preoperative administration of corticosteroid hormone has an adjunctive effect in terms of reducing pain and nausea/vomiting after surgery and improving the quality of postoperative recovery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using the minimisation method, patients undergoing HNS-FTR are currently being recruited and randomly assigned to a study arm at a 1:1 allocation rate. The study treatment arm consists of 8.0 mg of dexamethasone phosphate dissolved in 100 mL of saline administered as a single dose by intravenous infusion. These treatments will be administered in a double-blind fashion. All patients will receive perioperative care according to the common multicentre enhanced recovery after surgery programme. The primary endpoint is the quality of postoperative recovery, as determined by the area under the curve (AUC) for total score on the Japanese version of the Quality of Recovery Score (QOR-40J) on postoperative days 2 and 4. The point estimate and CI for the difference in the AUC between the groups on postoperative days 2 and 4 will be calculated. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study will be performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Japan's Clinical Trials Act. The study protocol was approved by the Certified Review Board of National Cancer Center Hospital East (Reference K2021004). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCTs031210593; V.3.0, November 2021, available at https://jrct.niph.go.jp/en-latest-detail/jRCTs031210593).

Effectiveness of a facilitation programme using a mobile application for initiating advance care planning discussions between patients with advanced cancer and healthcare providers: protocol for a randomised controlled trial (J-SUPPORT 2104).

INTRODUCTION: Timely implementation of the discussion process of advance care planning (ACP) is recommended. The communication attitude of healthcare providers is critical in ACP facilitation; thus, improving their communication attitudes may reduce patient distress and unnecessary aggressive treatment while enhancing care satisfaction. Digital mobile devices are being developed for behavioural interventions owing to their low space and time restrictions and ease of information sharing. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention programme using an application intended to facilitate patient questioning behaviour on improving communication related to ACP between patients with advanced cancer and healthcare providers. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study uses a parallel-group, evaluator-blind, randomised controlled trial design. We plan to recruit 264 adult patients with incurable advanced cancer at the National Cancer Centre in Tokyo, Japan. Intervention group participants use a mobile application ACP programme and undergo a 30 min interview with a trained intervention provider for discussions with the oncologist at the next patient visit, while control group participants continue their usual treatment. The primary outcome is the oncologist's communication behaviour score assessed using audiorecordings of the consultation. Secondary outcomes include communication between patients and oncologists and the patients' distress, quality of life, care goals and preferences, and medical care utilisation. We will use a full analysis set including the registered participant population who receive at least a part of the intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was reviewed and approved by the Scientific Advisory Board of the Japan Supportive, Palliative and Psychosocial Oncology Group (Registration No. 2104) and the Institutional Review Board of the National Cancer Centre Hospital (registration No. 2020-500). Written informed consent is obtained from the patients. The results of the trial will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: UMIN000045305, NCT05045040.