British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy.

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Understanding Patient Experiences to Inform Future Studies to Optimize Personalization of Treatment for Early Breast Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer treatment is multimodal, but not all patients benefit from each treatment, and many experience morbidities significantly impacting quality of life. There is increasing interest in tailoring breast cancer treatments to optimize oncological outcomes and reduce treatment burden, but it is vital that future trials focus on treatments that most impact patients. This study was designed to explore patient experiences of treatment to inform future research. METHODS: An online survey was co-developed with patient advocates to explore respondents' experiences of breast cancer treatment. Questions included simple demographics, treatments received, and views regarding omitting treatments if that is deemed safe. The survey was circulated via social media and patient advocacy groups. Responses were summarized by using simple statistics; free text was analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Of the 235 participants completing the survey, 194 (82.6%) would choose to omit a specific treatment if safe to do so. The most commonly selected treatments were chemotherapy (n = 69, 35.6%) and endocrine therapy (n = 61, 31.4%) mainly due to side effects. Fewer respondents would choose to omit surgery (n = 40, 20.6%) or radiotherapy (n = 20, 10.3%). Several women commented that survival was their "absolute priority" and that high-quality evidence to support the safety of reducing treatment would be essential. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with breast cancer are individuals who may wish to optimize different components of their treatment. A portfolio of studies co-designed with patients is needed to establish an evidence base for greater treatment personalization with studies focused on reducing avoidable chemotherapy and endocrine therapy a priority.

Bridging The Age Gap: observational cohort study of effects of chemotherapy and trastuzumab on recurrence, survival and quality of life in older women with early breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy improves outcomes for high risk early breast cancer (EBC) patients but is infrequently offered to older individuals. This study determined if there are fit older patients with high-risk disease who may benefit from chemotherapy. METHODS: A multicentre, prospective, observational study was performed to determine chemotherapy (±trastuzumab) usage and survival and quality-of-life outcomes in EBC patients aged ≥70 years. Propensity score-matching adjusted for variation in baseline age, fitness and tumour stage. RESULTS: Three thousands four hundred sixteen women were recruited from 56 UK centres between 2013 and 2018. Two thousands eight hundred eleven (82%) had surgery. 1520/2811 (54%) had high-risk EBC and 2059/2811 (73%) were fit. Chemotherapy was given to 306/1100 (27.8%) fit patients with high-risk EBC. Unmatched comparison of chemotherapy versus no chemotherapy demonstrated reduced metastatic recurrence risk in high-risk patients(hazard ratio [HR] 0.36 [95% CI 0.19-0.68]) and in 541 age, stage and fitness-matched patients(adjusted HR 0.43 [95% CI 0.20-0.92]) but no benefit to overall survival (OS) or breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) in either group. Chemotherapy improved survival in women with oestrogen receptor (ER)-negative cancer (OS: HR 0.20 [95% CI 0.08-0.49];BCSS: HR 0.12 [95% CI 0.03-0.44]).Transient negative quality-of-life impacts were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Chemotherapy was associated with reduced risk of metastatic recurrence, but survival benefits were only seen in patients with ER-negative cancer. Quality-of-life impacts were significant but transient. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 46099296.

The information and decision support needs of older women (>75 yrs) facing treatment choices for breast cancer: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Primary Endocrine Therapy (PET) is a good alternative to surgery for breast cancer in older frailer women. Overall survival rates are equivalent although rates of local control are inferior. There is little research regarding the decision support needs of older patients faced with this choice. This qualitative study aimed to explore these among older breast cancer patients offered a choice of treatment, as the basis to develop an appropriate decision support tool. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with older women (>75 years) with breast cancer who had been offered a choice of PET or surgery at diagnosis. Women's involvement in their treatment decision and support for the process were explored and analysed using framework analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three interviews were undertaken (median age 82, range 75-95 years, 22 PET, 11 surgery). Most women, regardless of treatment choice, wanted tailored information about the different treatment options, their impact on independence, the practicalities of treatment and the risk of recurrence and spread. Surgery was the treatment of choice in women wanting optimal disease control; those choosing PET felt that they were 'too old' for surgery and wanted minimal disruption. CONCLUSIONS: Older women described making active treatment decisions. However, some knowledge was inaccurate. Women wanted information and decision support from their clinicians along with a specific tailored information booklet to support this process.

The feasibility and acceptability of an app-based intervention with brief behavioural support (APPROACH) to promote brisk walking in people diagnosed with breast, prostate and colorectal cancer in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Increased moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) can improve clinical and psychosocial outcomes for people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC). This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures in a pilot randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a theory-driven app-based intervention with behavioural support focused on promoting brisk walking (a form of MVPA) in people LWBC (APPROACH). METHODS: Participants diagnosed with breast, prostate or colorectal cancer were recruited from a single UK hospital site. Assessments at baseline and 3 months included online questionnaires, device-measured brisk walking (activPAL accelerometer) and self-reported weight and height. Participants were randomised to intervention or control (care as usual). The intervention comprised a non-cancer-specific app to promote brisk walking (National Health Service 'Active 10') augmented with print information about habit formation, a walking planner and two behavioural support telephone calls. Feasibility and acceptability of trial procedures were explored. Initial estimates for physical activity informed a power calculation for a phase III RCT. A preliminary health economics analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Of those medically eligible, 369/577 (64%) were willing to answer further eligibility questions and 90/148 (61%) of those eligible were enrolled. Feasibility outcomes, including retention (97%), assessment completion rates (>86%) and app download rates in the intervention group (96%), suggest that the trial procedures are acceptable and that the intervention is feasible. The phase III RCT will require 472 participants to be randomised. As expected, the preliminary health economic analyses indicate a high level of uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrates that a large trial of the brisk walking intervention with behavioural support is both feasible and acceptable to people LWBC. The results support progression onto a confirmatory phase III trial to determine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Revealing transparency gaps in publicly available COVID-19 datasets used for medical artificial intelligence development-a systematic review.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, artificial intelligence (AI) models were created to address health-care resource constraints. Previous research shows that health-care datasets often have limitations, leading to biased AI technologies. This systematic review assessed datasets used for AI development during the pandemic, identifying several deficiencies. Datasets were identified by screening articles from MEDLINE and using Google Dataset Search. 192 datasets were analysed for metadata completeness, composition, data accessibility, and ethical considerations. Findings revealed substantial gaps: only 48% of datasets documented individuals' country of origin, 43% reported age, and under 25% included sex, gender, race, or ethnicity. Information on data labelling, ethical review, or consent was frequently missing. Many datasets reused data with inadequate traceability. Notably, historical paediatric chest x-rays appeared in some datasets without acknowledgment. These deficiencies highlight the need for better data quality and transparent documentation to lessen the risk that biased AI models are developed in future health emergencies.

Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE): study protocol for a partially randomised patient preference study.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are currently collected from trial participants using paper questionnaires by the Clinical Trials and Statistics Unit at The Institute of Cancer Research (ICR-CTSU). Streamlining PRO collection using electronic questionnaires (ePRO) may improve data collection and patient experience. Here, we outline our protocol for a Study within a trial of electronic versus paper-based Patient-Reported oUtcomes CollEction (SPRUCE), which investigates the acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: SPRUCE was developed alongside patient and public contributors. SPRUCE runs in multiple host trials with a partially randomised patient preference design, allowing participants to be randomised or choose their preference of electronic or paper questionnaires. Questionnaires are scheduled in accordance with host trial follow-up. The primary objective will assess differences in return rates (compliance) between ePRO and paper PROs at the first timepoint post-host trial intervention in the randomised group. Paper PRO compliance is expected to be 90%. 244 randomised participants are required to exclude ≤80% compliance rates with ePRO (10% non-inferiority margin, with 80% power and one-sided alpha=0.05). SPRUCE aims to assess acceptability of ePRO in oncology clinical trials, establish whether ePRO is acceptable to ICR-CTSU trial participants and can capture complete PRO data, consistent with paper PROs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The SPRUCE protocol (ICR-CTSU/2021/10074) was approved by the Coventry and Warwick Central Research Ethics Committee (21/WM/0223) on 21 October 2021. Results will be disseminated via presentations, publications and lay summaries. No participant identifiable data will be included. TRIAL REGISTRATION: SWAT169.

Outcomes of complex oncoplastic breast surgery in older women. Analysis of data from the Age Gap cohort study.

KEY WORDS: Breast cancer, mastectomy, breast conserving surgery, post-mastectomy reconstruction, older women, quality of life.

The value of standards for health datasets in artificial intelligence-based applications.

Artificial intelligence as a medical device is increasingly being applied to healthcare for diagnosis, risk stratification and resource allocation. However, a growing body of evidence has highlighted the risk of algorithmic bias, which may perpetuate existing health inequity. This problem arises in part because of systemic inequalities in dataset curation, unequal opportunity to participate in research and inequalities of access. This study aims to explore existing standards, frameworks and best practices for ensuring adequate data diversity in health datasets. Exploring the body of existing literature and expert views is an important step towards the development of consensus-based guidelines. The study comprises two parts: a systematic review of existing standards, frameworks and best practices for healthcare datasets; and a survey and thematic analysis of stakeholder views of bias, health equity and best practices for artificial intelligence as a medical device. We found that the need for dataset diversity was well described in literature, and experts generally favored the development of a robust set of guidelines, but there were mixed views about how these could be implemented practically. The outputs of this study will be used to inform the development of standards for transparency of data diversity in health datasets (the STANDING Together initiative).

Margin status and survival outcomes after breast cancer conservation surgery: prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if margin involvement is associated with distant recurrence and to determine the required margin to minimise both local recurrence and distant recurrence in early stage invasive breast cancer. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review and meta-analysis of literature. DATA SOURCES: Medline (PubMed), Embase, and Proquest online databases. Unpublished data were sought from study authors. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies reported on patients undergoing breast conserving surgery (for stages I-III breast cancer), allowed an estimation of outcomes in relation to margin status, and followed up patients for a minimum of 60 months. Patients with ductal carcinoma in situ only or treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy or by mastectomy were excluded. Where applicable, margins were categorised as tumour on ink (involved), close margins (no tumour on ink but <2 mm), and negative margins (≥2 mm). RESULTS: 68 studies from 1 January 1980 to 31 December 2021, comprising 112 140 patients with breast cancer, were included. Across all studies, 9.4% (95% confidence interval 6.8% to 12.8%) of patients had involved (tumour on ink) margins and 17.8% (13.0% to 23.9%) had tumour on ink or a close margin. The rate of distant recurrence was 25.4% (14.5% to 40.6%) in patients with tumour on ink, 8.4% (4.4% to 15.5%) in patients with tumour on ink or close, and 7.4% (3.9% to 13.6%) in patients with negative margins. Compared with negative margins, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (hazard ratio 2.10, 95% confidence interval 1.65 to 2.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (1.98, 1.66 to 2.36, P<0.001). Close margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (1.38, 1.13 to 1.69, P<0.001) and local recurrence (2.09, 1.39 to 3.13, P<0.001) compared with negative margins, after adjusting for receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy. In five studies published since 2010, tumour on ink margins were associated with increased distant recurrence (2.41, 1.81 to 3.21, P<0.001) as were tumour on ink and close margins (1.44, 1.22 to 1.71, P<0.001) compared with negative margins. CONCLUSIONS: Involved or close pathological margins after breast conserving surgery for early stage, invasive breast cancer are associated with increased distant recurrence and local recurrence. Surgeons should aim to achieve a minimum clear margin of at least 1 mm. On the basis of current evidence, international guidelines should be revised. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42021232115.

A phase IB and randomised phase IIA trial of CApecitabine plus Radium-223 (Xofigo™) in breast cancer patients with BONe metastases: CARBON trial results.

Background: Approximately 70% of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) develop bone metastases. Despite advances in systemic treatment options and the use of bone targeted agents in the management of bone metastases to reduce skeletal morbidity, there remains an unmet need for further treatment options. Radium-223 (Ra223) is an alpha-emitting radiopharmaceutical that is preferentially taken up into bone at sites of increased osteoblastic activity where it emits high-energy, short-range alpha-particles that could provide a targeted anti-tumour effect on bone metastases. Here we evaluate the safety, feasibility and efficacy findings of the combination of Ra223 with capecitabine chemotherapy in patients with MBC with bone involvement. Methods: CARBON is a multi-centre, open-label phase IB/IIA study evaluating the combination of Ra223 (55 kBq/kg day 1 given on 6 weekly schedule) and capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 bd days 4-17 every 21 days) in patients with bone metastases from MBC (± other disease sites). Other eligibility criteria included ECOG performance status 0-2, ≤2 lines of chemotherapy for MBC and current bisphosphonate or denosumab use for ≥ 6 weeks. The phase IB part of the trial (6 patients) was conducted to provide preliminary feasibility and safety of capecitabine + Ra223. Thereafter, 28 patients were randomised (2:1) to capecitabine + Ra223 or capecitabine alone to further characterise the safety profile and evaluate efficacy, the primary efficacy endpoint being the bone turnover marker (urinary n-telopeptide of type I collagen) change from baseline to end of cycle 5 and secondary endpoints of time to first symptomatic skeletal event, and disease progression at extra-skeletal and bone disease. Results: In addition to bone metastases, 10/23 [44%] and 13/23 [57%] capecitabine + Ra223 and 2/11 [18%] and 9/11 [82%] capecitabine alone patients had soft tissue and visceral disease sites respectively. More capecitabine + Ra223 patients had received prior chemotherapy for MBC: 11/23 [48%] vs 2/11 [18%]. The analysis populations comprise 34 patients (23 capecitabine + Ra223, 11 capecitabine); 2 patients randomised to capecitabine + Ra223 received capecitabine alone and are included in the capecitabine arm. Median number of cycles received was 8.5 in capecitabine + Ra223 (range 3-12) and 12 in the capecitabine arm (range 1-12). 94/95 prescribed Ra223 cycles were administered. No dose limiting toxicities were seen in phase IB and no patients developed grade ≥ III diarrhoea. Gastrointestinal, haematological and palmer-planter erthyrodysesthesia adverse events were similar in both arms. Although formal statistical comparisons were not made, changes in bone turnover markers, the times to extra-skeletal progression and bone disease progression, and the frequency of symptomatic skeletal events were similar across the two treatment arms. Conclusion: Capecitabine + Ra223 at the planned dose was safe and feasible in MBC patients with bone metastases. However, no efficacy signals were seen that might suggest greater efficacy of the combination over capecitabine alone clinically or biochemically.

Usability of myfood24 Healthcare and Mathematical Diet Optimisation in Clinical Populations: A Pilot Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial.

Monitoring nutritional intake is of clinical value, but few existing tools offer electronic dietary recording, instant nutritional analysis, and a platform connecting healthcare teams with patients that provides timely, personalised support. This feasibility randomised controlled trial tests the usability of 'myfood24 Healthcare', a dietary assessment app and healthcare professional website, in two clinical populations. Patients were recruited from a weight management programme (n21) and from a group of gastroenterology surgery outpatients (n = 27). They were randomised into three groups: standard care, myfood24, or myfood24 + diet optimisation (automated suggestions for dietary improvement). The participants were asked to record their diet at least four times over eight weeks. During the study, healthcare professionals viewed recorded dietary information to facilitate discussions about diet and nutritional targets. The participants provided feedback on usability and acceptability. A total of 48 patients were recruited, and 16 were randomised to each of the three groups. Compliance among app users (n = 32) was reasonable, with 25 (78%) using it at least once and 16 (50%) recording intake for four days or more. Among users, the mean (standard deviation) number of days used was 14.0 (17.5), and the median (interquartile range) was six (2.5-17.0) over 2 months. Feedback questionnaires were completed by only 23 of 46 participants (50%). The mean System Usability Score (n = 16) was 59 (95% confidence interval, 48-70). Patient and healthcare professional feedback indicates a need for more user training and the improvement of some key app features such as the food search function. This feasibility study shows that myfood24 Healthcare is acceptable for patients and healthcare professionals. These data will inform app refinements and its application in a larger clinical effectiveness trial.

Cancer, Fertility and Me: Developing and Testing a Novel Fertility Preservation Patient Decision Aid to Support Women at Risk of Losing Their Fertility Because of Cancer Treatment.

Background: Women with a new cancer diagnosis face complex decisions about interventions aiming to preserve their fertility. Decision aids are more effective in supporting decision making than traditional information provision. We describe the development and field testing of a novel patient decision aid designed to support women to make fertility preservation treatment decisions around cancer diagnosis. Methods: A prospective, mixed-method, three stage study involving: 1) co-development of the resource in collaboration with a multi-disciplinary group of key stakeholders including oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and patient partners (n=24), 2) alpha testing with a group of cancer patients who had faced a fertility preservation treatment decision in the past (n=11), and oncology and fertility healthcare professionals and stakeholders (n=14) and, 3) beta testing with women in routine care who had received a recent diagnosis of cancer and were facing a fertility preservation treatment decision (n=41) and their oncology and fertility healthcare professionals (n=3). Ten service users recruited from a closed Breast Cancer Now Facebook group and the support group Cancer and Fertility UK also provided feedback on CFM via an online survey. Results: A 60-page paper prototype of the Cancer, Fertility and Me patient decision aid was initially developed. Alpha testing of the resource found that overall, it was acceptable to cancer patients, healthcare professionals and key stakeholders and it was considered a useful resource to support fertility preservation treatment decision-making. However, the healthcare professionals felt that the length of the patient decision aid, and elements of its content may be a barrier to its use. Subsequently, the prototype was reduced to 40 pages. During beta testing of the shortened version in routine care, women who received the resource described its positive impact on their ability to make fertility preservation decisions and support them at a stressful time. However, practical difficulties emerged which impacted upon its wider dissemination in clinical practice and limited some elements of the evaluation planned. Discussion: Women receiving the decision aid within the cancer treatment pathway found it helped them engage with decisions about fertility preservation, and make better informed, values-based care plans with oncology and fertility teams. More work is needed to address access and implementation of this resource as part of routine oncology care pathways.

Formalising the induction of patient and public involvement contributors on trial oversight committees.

BACKGROUND: Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of trial design, running and oversight. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors joining trial oversight committees and was used to update the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London's (MRC CTU at UCL) induction pack for new PPI Contributors. METHODS: Published and unpublished materials provided by other CTUs and research organisations on training for PPI Contributors on oversight committees were reviewed, with themes then triangulated to identify the most common topics covered in induction training. A face-to-face workshop with PPI Contributors from the MRC CTU at UCL reviewed a draft updated Induction Pack. Findings from these discussions were incorporated into a revised induction pack which was then re-reviewed by the workshop attendees. RESULTS: No published literature on this subject was found. However, several common themes were identified from unpublished materials. Workshop attendees agreed with most of the themes suggested in the initial draft pack based on the literature search and also provided a number of additional topics for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: There is very little consistency in the induction of PPI Contributors on oversight committees. Whilst most local guidance explains the general role of a PPI Contributor, more context and background of the particular trial needs to be provided to allow for adequate induction of new committee members. The Induction Pack created provides a framework upon which trial managers can build a full picture of their study.

Clinical Trials Units are encouraged to integrate Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) into all aspects of their trials. This research explored the induction and training of PPI Contributors (e.g. patients, carers and members of the public) joining trial oversight committees. These committees regularly review trial progress and ensure participant safety. PPI Contributors sit on the committees to provide important guidance and advice on what the trial is like for a participant taking part.We looked at existing materials and research to find out what is already in use and how useful PPI Contributors felt it may be. We also held a workshop with existing PPI Contributors who had experience of participating in trials and sitting on oversight committees to find out what information they felt would be useful during the induction of a new member.Our research was used to create an induction pack for new PPI Contributors at the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London (MRC CTU at UCL). We have made this resource available to all researchers and in this report we describe how it was created.

Process evaluation of the Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer decision support intervention cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: The Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial (n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not. METHODS: Sixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used. RESULTS: Eighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70-93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants' responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN46099296 . Registered on 11 August 2016-retrospectively registered.

Age specific recruitment and retention to a large multicentre observational breast cancer trial in older women: The Age Gap Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Recruitment and retention are two of the most important factors in successfully running clinical trials. Many trials encounter problems with both, causing delays or preventing study progress. These issues are greater in older adults and patients with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed recruitment and retention in a large, multicentre, observational breast cancer study in older female patients (>70 years, N = 3440). Data collected by the Age Gap study were used to assess rates of, and reasons for, patients not being recruited or retained. Statistical analysis assessed the impact of age as a predictor of recruitment and retention. RESULTS: Between February 2013 and June 2018, 6876 patients were screened and 3456 were consented across 56 United Kingdom (UK) breast units. Reasons for non-recruitment included ineligibility, clinician issues, staffing resource issues, patients' lack of interest or time and trial burden. In comparison with the age demographics of patients with breast cancer in the UK, women aged 70-75 years were over-represented compared to older age groups. Logistic regression demonstrated that older age significantly reduced the odds of consent (OR = 0.96, CI: 0.938-0.982; p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that age (p < 0.001), markers of poor functional ability (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (p = 0.011)) and instrumental activities of daily living (p = 0.026) were significant predictors of withdrawal. DISCUSSION: This study has demonstrated that selection and attrition bias for age are apparent despite a range of 'age friendly' study design measures. Exploration of the underlying reasons for this and development of measures to address this should be the focus of further research.

Treatment choices for older women with primary operable breast cancer and cognitive impairment: Results from a prospective, multicentre cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The presence of dementia co-existing with a diagnosis of breast cancer may render management more challenging and have a substantial impact on oncological outcomes. The aim of this study was to examine the treatment and outcomes of older women with co-existing cognitive impairment and primary breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre UK cohort study of women aged 70 years or over with primary operable breast cancer. Patients with and without cognitive impairment were compared to assess differences in treatment and survival outcomes. RESULTS: In total, 3416 women were recruited between 2013 and 2018. Of these, 478 (14%) had a diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment, subcategorised as mild, moderate and severely impaired. Up to 85% of women with normal cognition underwent surgery compared to 74%, 61% and 40% with mild, moderate, and severe impairment (p = 0.001). Among women at higher risk of recurrence, the uptake of chemotherapy was 25% for cognitively normal women compared to 20%, 22% and 12% for mild, moderate and severe impairment groups (p = 0.222). Radiotherapy use was similar in the subgroups. Although patients with cognitive impairment had shorter overall survival (HR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.77-2.50, p < 0.001), there were no statistically significant differences in breast cancer specific or progression-free survival. CONCLUSION: Cognitive impairment appears to play a significant part in deciding how to treat older women with breast cancer. Standard treatment may be over-treatment for some women with severe dementia and careful consideration must be given to a more tailored approach in these women.

Observational cohort study in older women with early breast cancer: Use of radiation therapy and impact on health-related quality of life and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy reduces in-breast recurrence risk in early breast cancer (EBC) in older women. This benefit may be small and should be balanced against treatment effect and holistic patient assessment. This study described treatment patterns according to fitness and impact on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL). METHODS: A multicentre, observational study of EBC patients aged ≥ 70 years, undergoing breast-conserving surgery (BCS) or mastectomy, was undertaken. Associations between radiotherapy use, surgery, clinico-pathological parameters, fitness based on geriatric parameters and treatment centre were determined. HRQoL was measured using the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) questionnaires. RESULTS: In 2013-2018 2811 women in 56 UK study centres underwent surgery with a median follow-up of 52 months. On multivariable analysis, age and tumour risk predicted radiotherapy use. Among healthier patients (based on geriatric assessments) with high-risk tumours, 534/613 (87.1%) having BCS and 185/341 (54.2%) having mastectomy received radiotherapy. In less fit individuals with low-risk tumours undergoing BCS, 149/207 (72.0%) received radiotherapy. Radiotherapy effects on HRQoL domains, including breast symptoms and fatigue were seen, resolving by 18 months. CONCLUSION: Radiotherapy use in EBC patients ≥ 70 years is affected by age and recurrence risk, whereas geriatric parameters have limited impact regardless of type of surgery. There was geographical variation in treatment, with some fit older women with high-risk tumours not receiving radiotherapy, and some older, low-risk, EBC patients receiving radiotherapy after BCS despite evidence of limited benefit. The impact on HRQoL is transient.

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer. Impacts of omission of breast cancer surgery in older women with oestrogen receptor positive early breast cancer. A risk stratified analysis of survival outcomes and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Age-related breast cancer treatment variance is widespread with many older women having primary endocrine therapy (PET), which may contribute to inferior survival and local control. This propensity-matched study determined if a subgroup of older women may safely be offered PET. METHODS: Multicentre, prospective, UK, observational cohort study with propensity-matched analysis to determine optimal allocation of surgery plus ET (S+ET) or PET in women aged ≥70 with breast cancer. Data on fitness, frailty, cancer stage, grade, biotype, treatment and quality of life were collected. Propensity-matching (based on age, health status and cancer stage) adjusted for allocation bias when comparing S+ET with PET. FINDINGS: A total of 3416 women (median age 77, range 69-102) were recruited from 56 breast units-2854 (88%) had ER+ breast cancer: 2354 had S+ET and 500 PET. Median follow-up was 52 months. Patients treated with PET were older and frailer than patients treated with S+ET. Unmatched overall survival was inferior in the PET group (hazard ratio, (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-0.33, P < 0.001). Unmatched breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS) was also inferior in patients treated with PET (HR: 0.41, CI: 0.29-0.58, P < 0.001 for BCSS). In the matched analysis, PET was still associated with an inferior overall survival (HR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.53-0.98, P = 0.04) but not BCSS (HR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.40-1.37, P = 0.34) although at 4-5 years subtle divergence of the curves commenced in favor of surgery. Global health status diverged at certain time points between groups but over 24 months was similar when adjusted for baseline variance. INTERPRETATION: For the majority of older women with early ER+ breast cancer, surgery is oncologically superior to PET. In less fit, older women, with characteristics similar to the matched cohort of this study (median age 81 with higher comorbidity and functional impairment burdens, the BCSS survival differential disappears at least out to 4-5 year follow-up, suggesting that for those with less than 5-year predicted life-expectancy (>90 years or >85 with comorbidities or frailty) individualised decision making regarding PET versus S+ET may be appropriate and safe to offer. The Age Gap online decision tool may support this decision-making process (https://agegap.shef.ac.uk/). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 46099296.

Bridging the Age Gap in breast cancer: Impact of chemotherapy on quality of life in older women with early breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with early breast cancer (EBC) derive modest survival benefit from chemotherapy but have increased toxicity risk. Data on the impact of chemotherapy for EBC on quality of life in older patients are limited, but this is a key determinant of treatment acceptance. We aimed to investigate its effect on quality of life in older patients enrolled in the Bridging the Age Gap study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, observational study of EBC patients ≥70 years old was conducted in 2013-2018 at 56 UK hospitals. Demographics, patient, tumour characteristics, treatments and adverse events were recorded. Quality of life was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaires (EORTC-QLQ) C30, BR23 and ELD 15 plus the Euroqol-5D (eq-5d) over 24 months and analysed at each time point using baseline adjusted linear regression analysis and propensity score-matching. RESULTS: Three thousand and four hundred sixteen patients were enrolled in the study; 1520 patients undergoing surgery and who had high-risk EBC were included in this analysis. 376/1520 (24.7%) received chemotherapy. At 6 months, chemotherapy had a significant negative impact in several EORTC-QLQ-C30 domains, including global health score, physical, role, social functioning, cognition, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, dyspnoea, appetite loss, diarrhoea and constipation. Similar trends were documented on other scales (EORTC-QLQ-BR23, EORTC-QLQ-ELD15 and EQ-5D-5L). Its impact was no longer significant at 18-24 months in unmatched and matched cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of chemotherapy on quality-of-life is clinically and statistically significant at 6 months but resolves by 18 months, which is crucial to inform decision-making for older patients contemplating chemotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN: 46099296.