Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Building Capacity for Patient-Oriented Research: Utilizing Decision Aids to Translate Evidence into Practice, Policy and Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this project was to engage with patient partners to translate knowledge about the decision aids and develop a scaling-up strategy for wider effects and reach. METHOD: This project was guided by the World Health Organization and IDEAS (Integrate, Design, Assess and Share) frameworks for design thinking (e.g., ideating creative strategies), dissemination (e.g., sharing locally and widely) and scalability. RESULTS: We engaged 132 stakeholders in six webinars, had 321 total page views of the decision aids and conducted 16 interviews to determine revisions to the design of the decision aids before scalability. CONCLUSION: Patient-partner collaborations assisted with design thinking, dissemination and scalability.

Patient and Public Perceptions in Canada About Decentralized and Hybrid Clinical Trials: "It's About Time we Bring Trials to People".

BACKGROUND: Little is known about patient and the public perspectives on decentralized and hybrid clinical trials in Canada. METHODS: We conducted an online survey (English and French) promoted on social media to understand perspectives of people in Canada about decentralized and hybrid clinical trials. The survey had two sections. We co-produced this project entirely with patient, caregiver, and family partners. RESULTS: The survey had 284 (14 French) individuals who started or completed Section 1, and 180 (16 French) individuals who started or completed Section 2. People prefer to have options to participate in clinical trials where aspects are decentralized or hybridized. 79% of respondents preferred to have options related to study visits. There were concerns about handling adverse events or potential complications in decentralized trials, however, communication options such as a dedicated contact person for participants was deemed helpful. Most respondents were amenable to informed consent being done at a satellite site closer to home or via technology and were split on privacy concerns about this. Most preferred travel to a site within an hour, depending on what the trial was for or its impact on quality of life. Due to the response rate, we were unable to explore associations with gender, age, health status, geography, ethnicity, and prior clinical trial participation. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate an openness in Canada to participating in trials that decentralize or hybridize some aspects. These trials are perceived to provide benefits to participants and ways to increase equity and accessibility for participants.

Patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials (PEP-CT): protocol for the systematic development and testing of patient partner and investigator decision aids.

INTRODUCTION: Building capacity to improve sex/gender knowledge and strengthen patient engagement in clinical trials requires training and support. The overall goal of this 2-year project is to refine, translate and evaluate two web-based open-access patient and investigator decision aids aimed to improve patient engagement partnerships in clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Two decision aids were designed in Phase 1 of this programme of research and this protocol describes a subsequent sequential phased approach to refine/translate (Phase 2A) and conduct alpha/usability (Phase 2B) and beta/field (Phase 3) testing. Decision aid development is guided by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, User-Centred Design, Ottawa Decision-Support Framework and the Ottawa Model of Research Use. We have integrated patient-oriented research methods by engaging patient partners across all phases of our programme of research. Decision aids will first be refined and then translated to French (Phase 2A). Eight iterative cycles of semistructured interviews with 40 participants (20 patient partners and 20 investigators) will be conducted to determine usability (Phase 2B). A pragmatic pre/post pilot study design will then be implemented for field/beta testing using another purposive sample of 80 English-speaking and French-speaking participants (40 patients and 40 investigators). The samples are purposive to ensure an equal representation of English-speaking and French-speaking participants and an equal representation of men and women. Since sex and/or gender differences in utilisation and effectiveness of decision aids have not been previously reported, Phase 3 outcomes will be reported for the total sample and separately for men and women. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted from the University of Toronto (41109, 28 September 2021). Informed consent will be obtained from participants. Dissemination will include co-authored publications, conference presentations, educational national public forums, fact sheets/newsletters, social media sharing and videos/webinars.

Report from the Ready for the Next Round Thought-Leadership Roundtables on Building Resilience in Cancer Care and Control in Canada-Colorectal Cancer Canada; 2021.

(1) Background: The COVID-19 pandemic illuminated vulnerabilities in the Canadian health care system and exposed gaps and challenges across the cancer care continuum. Canada is experiencing significant disruptions to cancer-related services, and the impact these disruptions (delays/deferrals/cancellations) have on the health care system and patients are yet to be determined. Given the potential adverse ramifications, how can Canada's health care systems build resilience for future threats? (2) Methods: To answer this question, CCC facilitated a series of four thought-leadership roundtables, each representing the views of four different stakeholder groups: patients, physicians, health care system leaders, and researchers. (3) Results: Six themes of strength were identified to serve as a springboard for building resilience including, (1) advancing virtual care and digital health technologies to prevent future interruptions in cancer care delivery. (2) developing real-time data metrics, data sharing, and evidence-based decision-making. (3) enhancing public-private-non-profit partnerships to advance research and strengthen connections across the system. (4) advancing patient-centricity in cancer research to drive and encourage precision medicine approaches to care. (5) investing in training and hiring a robust supply of health care human resources. (6) implementing a national strategy and infrastructure to ensure inter-provincial collaborative data sharing (4). Conclusions: A resilient health care system that can respond to shocks and threats is not an emergency system; it is a robust everyday system that can respond to emergencies.

Results from a Theory-Guided Survey to Support Breast Cancer Trial Participation: Barriers, Enablers, and What to Do about them.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring adequate, informed, and timely participation in clinical trials is a multifactorial problem. We have previously developed a systematic, tailorable survey development approach that is informed by theory, can identify barriers and enablers to participation, and can suggest recruitment strategies to address these issues. In this study, we surveyed subscribers to the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) in order to identify a comprehensive list of theory-informed barriers and enablers relevant to participation in a hypothetical breast cancer trial. METHODS: We developed and conducted an online survey of breast cancer patients informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and designed to determine previous experience with clinical trials, knowledge about clinical trials, and importance of a comprehensive list of barriers and enablers to trial participation. Participants were contacted by email or through social media. RESULTS: From 2451 subscribers of the CBCN, we received 244 responses and 210 completed surveys (244/2451 or 9.9% participation, 210/244 or 86.1% completion). A total of 38% of respondents indicated experience in trial participation, but 83% indicated confidence in their knowledge about clinical trials. Those who had previously participated in clinical trials were more confident in their knowledge (χ2= 6.77, p = 0.009) and answered more knowledge questions (t = -3.90 p = 0.000). Endorsed barriers and enablers to participation included 39 factors across 12 of 14 domains relevant to behaviour change. Our approach identifies barriers that might be meaningfully addressed by careful knowledge provision ('If I would learn more about my condition'; 'If I find the trial documents hard to understand'), those that may require other theory-informed approaches to address ('my feelings about the quality of my drug plan'; 'my worry over unknown side effects'), and those that may require tailored approaches depending on participant differences such as previous experience in trials ('If there were patient-friendly decision-making tools to help you make your participation decision'). DISCUSSION: This work demonstrates that a comprehensive, theory-guided survey of barriers and enablers to participation in breast cancer clinical trials is feasible, can lead to detailed knowledge about the issues related to participation in specific trials, and most importantly, can lead to insights about evidence-based ways to better support patient participation.

A patient-focused, theory-guided approach to survey design identified barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation.

OBJECTIVES: Despite clear evidence showing that many clinical trials fail or are delayed because of poor patient recruitment, there is surprisingly little empirically supported guidance for trialists seeking to optimize their trial recruitment strategies. We propose that the challenges of recruitment can be better understood and addressed by thinking of research participation as one or more behaviors, subject to the same forces as other human behaviors. In this article, we describe an adaptable, behavioral theory-driven approach for designing pretrial surveys of the barriers and drivers relevant to trial participation. Instead of proposing a single survey instrument intended to be used uniformly across many situations, we propose that tailored surveys be informed by a common comprehensive, theory-guided development approach that ensures all domains potentially guiding participation are considered. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), which organizes over 100 constructs known to be associated with behavior and behavior change into 14 domains that describe determinants of professional and patient health behaviors, to inform the development of tailored surveys about barriers to and drivers of clinical trial participation. After searching the literature for barriers and drivers to trial recruitment relevant to each of the TDF domains, we developed separate surveys for members of two national health charities (Canadian Breast Cancer Network, Huntington Society of Canada) to exemplify how the approach can be adapted across settings. We conducted think-aloud interviews with members of each group to maximize the clarity and usability of the surveys, elicited opinions about which barriers/drivers were relevant for each patient group, and identified additional barriers/drivers. Interviews proceeded iteratively with changes incorporated into subsequent interviews. Here, we describe our two target patient groups, as well as our process of modifying, adding, and deleting barrier/driver items for each group and across theoretical domains. RESULTS: We interviewed 8 women with a history of breast cancer from the Canadian Breast Cancer Network (48-65 year old) and 11 Huntington Disease community members (9 women) from the Huntington Society of Canada (26-70 year old). After the iterative development interviews, the breast cancer group had identified 38 barriers/drivers thought relevant to their participation in clinical trials across 12 TDF domains. The Huntington group identified 47 items across 13 TDF domains. CONCLUSION: Our patient-focused and theory-guided approach was able to identify a more comprehensive range of barriers to and drivers of trial participation than existing published tools. Our approach is also more broadly adaptable than such tools, in that it uses a theoretical framework and in-depth piloting to generate a set of items tailored to each specific clinical area, rather than a single set of items intended to be applicable to all situations. This theory-guided approach also enables more specific recruitment strategies to be developed once domain-specific barriers are known, potentially optimizing participation for a given trial and helping build a cumulative evidence of barriers/drivers and strategies for addressing them.

Patient Engagement Partnerships in Clinical Trials: Development of Patient Partner and Investigator Decision Aids.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 systematic review suggested patient engagement in clinical trials has been limited, with little active engagement in trial design or data analysis, interpretation or dissemination. Additionally, there remains limited sex/gender reporting in clinical trial research. OBJECTIVES: The overall goal of this project was to disseminate sex/gender knowledge and build capacity for patient engagement in clinical trials. Specific objectives were to (1) create capacity and identify opportunities for patient engagement in clinical trials and sponsor- or investigator-led activities (e.g. clinical trial design and conduct); and (2) enhance new/early investigator sex/gender knowledge and skills related to patient-oriented research (POR). METHODS: We used the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Capacity Development Framework and the SPOR Patient Engagement Framework to guide three phases of this project: (1) conduct a scoping review using methods described by the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) and the Coordinating Centre at the Institute of Education (Phase 1); (2) host a 1-day POR consultation workshop (Phase 2); and (3) deliver a new/early investigator POR training day (Phase 3). Six electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, the Cochrane Library, and AMED) were searched from 1996 using keywords and Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) terms in accordance with the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) and the search criteria in the bibliographic databases. Standard approaches were used to search the grey literature. RESULTS: A total of 79 studies and over 150 websites were subject to data abstraction by team members, capturing information on sex/gender and SPOR's patient engagement guiding principles of inclusiveness, support, mutual respect, and co-building. Results were presented to 32 key stakeholders at the consultation workshop and input was sought on next steps using nominal group techniques. Based on the plethora of existing POR resources, relevant POR information from the scoping review was collated into two decision aids (patient and investigator) to determine readiness to engage with/as a patient partner in a clinical trial. The decision aids were presented at a POR training day with 88 new/early investigators, clinicians, patient partners and decision makers. The decision aids showed 'good' usability, assessed using the System Usability Scale (SUS). Attendees thought the decision aids were engaging, they increased their understanding of sex/gender, patient engagement and POR, and they would recommend them to others. POR principles and practices were integrated across all phases of the project. Patient partners (1) identified research priorities/search terms; (2) collected/analyzed data; (3) designed the patient partner decision aid; and (4) disseminated the results through presentation. CONCLUSION: Our digital patient partner and investigator decision aids are the first to provide information technology to deliver sex/gender, POR knowledge, and decision support beyond the traditional decision aids used for health screening and/or treatment decisions. The decision aids have the potential to make a significant contribution to Canada's Strategy for POR and support the collaborative efforts of patients and investigators to build a sustainable, accessible and equitable health care system.

The goal of this project was to improve sex/gender knowledge and help patients and investigators work together as partners in clinical trials. There were three phases to this project: Phase 1, search the literature to see what others had done; Phase 2, share the results of Phase 1 with key stakeholders to determine gaps, and develop tools to fill the gaps; and Phase 3, share the tools developed in Phase 2 with others to get feedback. We worked with Clinical Trials Ontario and other key stakeholders to make two decision aids­one for patients and one for investigators. The decision aids share sex/gender knowledge and information about patient-oriented research. Each decision aid has five parts: (1) Introduction (get the facts); (2) My Priorities (patient partner and investigator priorities); (3) Learn More (information on sex/gender and other resources to help patients and investigators work together); (4) My Readiness (comparing priorities with benefits and risks); and (5) My Decision (decision and next steps). Patients, investigators, and other key stakeholders really liked the decision aids and found them easy to move through, they had useful information, and they looked good. Comments included "I enjoyed that the decision aids were separated for patients and investigators"; "I liked it, it was user-friendly and easy to navigate"; and "there could be more interaction and aimed more for mobile devices". These decision aids are the first to provide knowledge and support beyond the standard decision aids used for health decisions. Next steps include getting more feedback and using the decision aids in a laboratory and then in a real-life setting and see if people still like them.

Pragmatic Strategy Empowering Paramedics to Assess Low-Risk Trauma Patients With the Canadian C-Spine Rule and Selectively Transport Them Without Immobilization: Protocol for a Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Each year, half a million patients with a potential neck (c-spine) injury are transported to Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Less than 1.0% (1/100) of these patients have a neck bone fracture. Even less (1/200, 0.5%) have a spinal cord injury or nerve damage. Currently, paramedics transport all trauma victims (with or without an injury) by ambulance using a backboard, cervical collar, and head immobilizers. Importantly, prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary; it causes patient discomfort and pain, decreases community access to paramedics, contributes to ED crowding, and is very costly. We therefore developed the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) for alert and stable trauma patients. This decision rule helps ED physicians and triage nurses to safely and selectively remove immobilization, without x-rays and missed injury. We successfully taught Ottawa paramedics to use the CCR in the field in a single-center study. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve patient care and health system efficiency and outcomes by allowing paramedics to assess eligible low-risk trauma patients with the CCR and selectively transport them without immobilization to the ED. METHODS: We propose a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with health economic evaluation, designed collaboratively with knowledge users. Our 36-month study will consist of a 12-month setup and training period (year 1), followed by the stepped-wedge trial (year 2) and a 12-month period for study completion, analyses, and knowledge translation. A total of 12 Ontario paramedic services of various sizes distributed across the province will be randomly allocated to one of three sequences. Paramedic services in each sequence will cross from the control condition (usual care) to the intervention condition (CCR implementation) at intervals of 3 months until all communities have crossed to the intervention. Data will be collected on all eligible patients in each paramedic service for a total duration of 12 months. A major strength of our design is that each community will have implemented the CCR by the end of the study. RESULTS: Interim results are expected in December 2019 and final results in 2020. If this multicenter trial is successful, we expect the Ontario Ministry of Health will recommend that paramedics evaluate all eligible patients with the CCR in the Province of Ontario. CONCLUSIONS: We conservatively estimate that in Ontario, more than 60% of all eligible trauma patients (300,000 annually) could be transported safely and comfortably, without c-spine immobilization devices. This will significantly reduce patient pain and discomfort, paramedic intervention times, and ED length of stay, thereby improving access to paramedics and ED care. This could be achieved rapidly and with lower health care costs compared with current practices (possible cost saving of Can $36 [US $25] per immobilization or Can $10,656,000 [US $7,335,231] per year). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02786966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02786966. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16966.

Survey of Awareness and Perceptions of Canadians on the Benefits and Risks of Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the Canadian public's perspective regarding clinical trials. METHODS: We surveyed 1602 Ontario and British Columbia residents to ascertain their understanding of and willingness to participate in clinical trials. RESULTS: Clinical trials are regarded positively with overall perceptions that they provide societal and personal benefits. Most respondents were somewhat (49%) or very willing (19%) to participate in a clinical trial. This increased with age and level of education. It was also greater among those with poor or very poor health, those with multiple chronic conditions, and those who had previously been invited into a clinical trial, all of which were correlated with age. Still, there was room for improvement in awareness and understanding of clinical trials. Forty-three percent of those surveyed felt not very informed or not at all informed and 37% had no opinion regarding clinical trials. Respondents would most often turn to their treating physician if considering participating in a clinical trial and least often to social media. CONCLUSION: While Canadians' views about clinical trials are generally positive, they are somewhat muted and a significant minority feels poorly or not at all informed. They are less willing to participate in clinical research than Americans and are roughly equivalent to Europeans. While clinicians are the top choice for learning about clinical trials, they have little or no training and little time for this role. As we move toward integrating clinical trials into the practice setting, these issues of time, training, and resources must be addressed.

Developing a framework for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials in healthcare: a mixed methods research protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a widely recognized need for more pragmatic trials that evaluate interventions in real-world settings to inform decision-making by patients, providers, and health system leaders. Increasing availability of electronic health records, centralized research ethics review, and novel trial designs, combined with support and resources from governments worldwide for patient-centered research, have created an unprecedented opportunity to advance the conduct of pragmatic trials, which can ultimately improve patient health and health system outcomes. Such trials raise ethical issues that have not yet been fully addressed, with existing literature concentrating on regulations in specific jurisdictions rather than arguments grounded in ethical principles. Proposed solutions (e.g. using different regulations in "learning healthcare systems") are speculative with no guarantee of improvement over existing oversight procedures. Most importantly, the literature does not reflect a broad vision of protecting the core liberty and welfare interests of research participants. Novel ethical guidance is required. We have assembled a team of ethicists, trialists, methodologists, social scientists, knowledge users, and community members with the goal of developing guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. METHODS: Our project will combine empirical and conceptual work and a consensus development process. Empirical work will: (1) identify a comprehensive list of ethical issues through interviews with a small group of key informants (e.g. trialists, ethicists, chairs of research ethics committees); (2) document current practices by reviewing a random sample of pragmatic trials and surveying authors; (3) elicit views of chairs of research ethics committees through surveys in Canada, UK, USA, France, and Australia; and (4) elicit views and experiences of community members and health system leaders through focus groups and surveys. Conceptual work will consist of an ethical analysis of identified issues and the development of new ethical solutions, outlining principles, policy options, and rationales. The consensus development process will involve an independent expert panel to develop a final guidance document. DISCUSSION: Planned output includes manuscripts, educational materials, and tailored guidance documents to inform and support researchers, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, and funders in the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials.

Phase III study of N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl) phenoxy]ethanamine (BMS-217380-01) combined with doxorubicin versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer: National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Study MA.19.

PURPOSE: N,N-diethyl-2-[4-(phenylmethyl)phenoxy]ethanamine (DPPE; tesmilifene) is a novel agent that augments chemotherapy cytotoxicity in vitro and in vivo. A phase II trial combining DPPE and doxorubicin (DOX) in metastatic breast carcinoma showed increased response over that expected with DOX. We report a phase III trial comparing DOX with DPPE plus DOX in metastatic or recurrent breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Anthracycline-naive women with measurable metastatic disease were randomly assigned to receive, every 21 days, either DOX 60 mg/m(2) intravenously or DOX during the last 20 minutes of an 80-minute infusion of DPPE (5.3 mg/kg), in both cases to cumulative DOX doses of 450 mg/m(2). Patients receiving DPPE were aggressively premedicated to ameliorate toxicity. End points included progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), and response duration (RD), quality of life (QOL), toxicity, and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: A planned interim analysis failed to detect an RR difference more than 5%. The study was closed to additional accrual and all DPPE was discontinued. The final analysis was conducted as planned after 256 progression events (median follow-up, 20.5 months). There was no significant difference in RR, RD, or PFS between arms. DPPE plus DOX was statistically superior to DOX in OS (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.91; P =.021). DPPE plus DOX was associated with more gastrointestinal and CNS toxicity. No consistent influence on QOL was detected. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no advantage in RR, RD, or PFS but significantly superior OS for DPPE plus DOX. Additional studies of DPPE are warranted.

Randomized trial of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous peripheral-blood stem-cell support compared with standard-dose chemotherapy in women with metastatic breast cancer: NCIC MA.16.

PURPOSE: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial to compare progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and quality of life in women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving high-dose chemotherapy plus autologous stem-cell transplantation (ASCT; HDCT) compared with standard-dose therapy. PATIENT AND METHODS: Between April 1997 and December 2000, 386 women with MBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were registered. After initial response to anthracycline- or taxane-based induction chemotherapy, 224 patients were randomly assigned: 112 to high-dose cyclophosphamide, mitoxantrone, and carboplatin chemotherapy and ASCT (HDCT), and 112 to standard therapy (ST). Median age was 47 years (range, 25 to 67 years). Thirty two percent of women randomly assigned had estrogen and progesterone receptor-negative breast cancer, 42% had visceral metastases, and 58% had bone metastases. Complete remission rates before random assignment were 11% for those receiving HDCT and 12% for those receiving ST. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 48 months, 79 deaths were observed in the HDCT arm and 77 deaths were observed in the ST arm; seven patients (6%) in the HDCT arm died as a result of toxicity. The median OS was 24 months for the HDCT arm (95% CI, 21 to 35 months) and 28 months for ST (95% CI, 22 to 33 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.9; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2; P = .43). PFS was 11 months for HDCT and 9 months for ST (HR, 0.6 in favor of HDCT; 95% CI, 0.5 to 0.9; P = .006). CONCLUSION: HDCT did not improve OS in women with MBC when used as consolidation after response to induction chemotherapy.