Management of the respiratory distress symptom cluster in lung cancer: a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness, cough and fatigue are distressing symptoms for patients with lung cancer. There is evidence that these three symptoms form a discreet symptom cluster. This study aimed to feasibly test a new non-pharmacological intervention for the management of the Respiratory Distress Symptom Cluster (breathlessness-cough-fatigue) in lung cancer. METHOD: This was a multi-centre, randomised controlled non-blinded parallel group feasibility trial. Eligible patients (patients with primary lung cancer and 'bothered' by at least two of the three cluster symptoms) received usual care plus a multicomponent intervention delivered over two intervention training sessions and a follow-up telephone call or usual care only. Follow-up was for 12 weeks, and end-points included six numerical rating scales for breathlessness severity, Dyspnoea-12, Manchester Cough in Lung Cancer scale, FACIT-Fatigue scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale, Lung Cancer Symptom Scale and the EQ-5D-3L, collected at baseline, week 4 and week 12. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were randomised over 8 months; however, six were removed from further analysis due to protocol violations (intervention group n = 50 and control group n = 51). Of the ineligible patients (n = 608), 29 % reported either not experiencing two or more symptoms or not being 'bothered' by at least two symptoms. There was 29 % drop-out by week 4, and by week 12, a further two patients in the control group were lost to follow-up. A sample size calculation indicated that 122 patients per arm would be needed to detect a clinically important difference in the main outcome for breathlessness, cough and fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: The study has provided evidence of the feasibility and acceptability of a new intervention in the lung cancer population and warrants a fully powered trial before we reach any conclusions. The follow-on trial will test the hypothesis that the intervention improves symptom cluster of breathlessness, cough and fatigue better than usual care alone. Full economic evaluation will be conducted in the main trial.

Rituximab versus a watch-and-wait approach in patients with advanced-stage, asymptomatic, non-bulky follicular lymphoma: an open-label randomised phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma have conventionally undergone watchful waiting until disease progression. We assessed whether rituximab use could delay the need for chemotherapy or radiotherapy compared with watchful waiting and the effect of this strategy on quality of life (QoL). METHODS: Asymptomatic patients (aged ≥18 years) with low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma (grades 1, 2, and 3a) were randomly assigned centrally (1:1:1), by the minimisation approach stratified by institution, grade, stage, and age, to watchful waiting, rituximab 375 mg/m(2) weekly for 4 weeks (rituximab induction), or rituximab induction followed by a maintenance schedule of 12 further infusions given at 2-monthly intervals for 2 years (maintenance rituximab). On Sept 30, 2007, recruitment into the rituximab induction group was closed and the study was amended to a two-arm study. The primary endpoints were time to start of new treatment and QoL at month 7 (ie, 6 months after completion of rituximab induction). All randomly assigned patients were included in the analysis of time to start of new treatment on an intention-to-treat basis. The main study is now completed and is in long-term follow-up. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00112931. FINDINGS: Between Oct 15, 2004, and March 25, 2009, 379 patients from 118 centres in the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Turkey, and Poland were randomly assigned to watchful waiting or maintenance rituximab. 84 patients were recruited to the rituximab induction group before it was closed early. There was a significant difference in the time to start of new treatment, with 46% (95% CI 39-53) of patients in the watchful waiting group not needing treatment at 3 years compared with 88% (83-92) in the maintenance rituximab group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·21, 95% CI 0·14-0·31; p<0·0001). 78% (95% CI 69-87) of patients in the rituximab induction group did not need treatment at 3 years, which was significantly more than in the watchful waiting group (HR 0·35, 95% CI 0·22-0·56; p<0·0001), but no different compared with the maintenance rituximab group (0·75, 0·41-1·34; p=0·33). Compared with the watchful waiting group, patients in the maintenance rituximab group had significant improvements in the Mental Adjustment to Cancer scale score (p=0·0004), and Illness Coping Style score (p=0·0012) between baseline and month 7. Patients in the rituximab induction group did not show improvements in their QoL compared with the watchful waiting group. There were 18 serious adverse events reported in the rituximab groups (four in the rituximab induction group and 14 in the maintenance rituximab group), 12 of which were grade 3 or 4 (five infections, three allergic reactions, and four cases of neutropenia), all of which fully resolved. INTERPRETATION: Rituximab monotherapy should be considered as a treatment option for patients with asymptomatic, advanced-stage, low-tumour-burden follicular lymphoma. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Lymphoma Research Trust, Lymphoma Association, and Roche.

Experiences of being a control group: lessons from a UK-based randomized controlled trial of group singing as a health promotion initiative for older people.

Existing randomized controlled trials within the health field suggest that the concept of randomization is not always well understood and that feelings of disappointment may occur when participants are not placed in their preferred arm. This may affect a study's rigour and ethical integrity if not addressed. We aimed to test whether these issues apply to a healthy volunteer sample within a health promotion trial of singing for older people. Written comments from control group participants at two points during the trial were analysed, together with individual semi-structured interviews with a small sample (n = 11) of this group. We found that motivation to participate in the trial was largely due to the appeal of singing and disappointment resulted from allocation to the control group. Understanding of randomization was generally good and feelings of disappointment lessened over time and with a post-research opportunity to sing. Findings suggest that measures should be put in place to minimize the potential negative impacts of randomized controlled trials in health promotion research.