Where do we go from here? - Opportunities and barriers to the career development of trial managers: a survey of UK-based trial management professionals.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials commonly have a dedicated trial manager and effective trial management is essential to the successful delivery of high-quality trials. Trial managers have diverse experience and currently there is no standardised structured career pathway. The UK Trial Managers' Network (UKTMN) surveyed its members to understand what is important to them with respect to career development since this would be important in the development of any initiative intended to develop a skilled workforce. METHODS: We conducted an online survey of UKTMN members, who are trial management professionals, working on academic-led trials in the UK. Members were asked what they perceive as opportunities and barriers to career development. Two reminders were sent to facilitate completion of the survey, and responders were offered the opportunity to enter a prize draw for waived fees at the UKTMN annual meeting. Data were analysed descriptively by using Stata (version 15.1), and free-text responses were reviewed for themes. RESULTS: The survey was sent to 819 UKTMN members; 433 responses were received, although 13 were from non-UKTMN members; thus 420 respondents' data were included in analyses. Respondents were representative of UKTMN membership; however, more responses were received by trial managers based in registered clinical trials units (CTUs). The top three opportunities for career development were (i) training, (ii) helping design trials and (iii) undertaking relevant qualifications. The top three barriers were (i) funding, (ii) few opportunities to get involved in development activities aside from managing a trial and (iii) unclear organisational career pathway. Almost all respondents (401/420, 95.4%) considered career development either very or quite important. Although all respondents had a day-to-day role in managing trials, there was huge disparity between job titles. CONCLUSION: Career development is important to trial managers yet there is a lack of a structured pathway. The enablers and disablers to career development for trial managers should be clearly considered by the clinical trial community and, in particular, employers, sponsors and funders in order to develop a highly skilled workforce of trial managers, who are key to the delivery of trials.

Best time to assess complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy in squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a post-hoc analysis of randomised controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for anal cancer recommend assessment of response at 6-12 weeks after starting treatment. Using data from the ACT II trial, we determined the optimum timepoint to assess clinical tumour response after chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: The previously reported ACT II trial was a phase 3 randomised trial of patients of any age with newly diagnosed, histologically confirmed, squamous cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients (by minimisation) to receive either intravenous mitomycin (one dose of 12 mg/m2 on day 1) or intravenous cisplatin (one dose of 60 mg/m2 on days 1 and 29), with intravenous fluorouracil (one dose of 1000 mg/m2 per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50·4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); and also did a second randomisation after initial therapy to maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin) or no maintenance chemotherapy. The primary outcome was complete clinical response (the absence of primary and nodal tumour by clinical examination), in addition to overall survival and progression-free survival from time of randomisation. In this post-hoc analysis, we analysed complete clinical response at three timepoints: 11 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 1), 18 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 2), and 26 weeks from the start of chemoradiotherapy (assessment 3) as well as the overall and progression-free survival estimates of patients with complete clinical response or without complete clinical response at each assessment. We analysed both the overall trial population and a subgroup of patients who had attended each of the three assessments by modified intention-to-treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, ISRCTN 26715889. FINDINGS: We enrolled 940 patients from June 4, 2001, until Dec 16, 2008. Complete clinical response was achieved in 492 (52%) of 940 patients at assessment 1 (11 weeks), 665 (71%) of patients at assessment 2 (18 weeks), and 730 (78%) of patients at assessment 3 (26 weeks). 691 patients attended all three assessments and in this subgroup, complete clinical response was reported in 441 (64%) patients at assessment 1, 556 (80%) at assessment 2, and 590 (85%) at assessments 3. 151 (72%) of the 209 patients who had not had a complete clinical response at assessment 1 had a complete clinical response by assessment 3. In the overall trial population of 940 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3 was 83% (95% CI 79-86), 84% (81-87), and 87% (84-89), respectively and was 72% (66-78), 59% (49-67), and 46% (37-55) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessments 1, 2, 3, respectively. In the subgroup of 691 patients, 5 year overall survival in patients who had a clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3 was 85% (81-88), 86% (82-88), and 87% (84-90), respectively, and was 75% (68-80), 61% (50-70), and 48% (36-58) for patients who did not have a complete clinical response at assessment 1, 2, 3, respectively. Similarly, progression-free survival in both the overall trial population and the subgroup was longer in patients who had a complete clinical response, compared with patients who did not have a complete clinical response, at all three assessments. INTERPRETATION: Many patients who do not have a complete clinical response when assessed at 11 weeks after commencing chemoradiotherapy do in fact respond by 26 weeks, and the earlier assessment could lead to some patients having unnecessary surgery. Our data suggests that the optimum time for assessment of complete clinical response after chemoradiotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is 26 weeks from starting chemoradiotherapy. We suggest that guidelines should be revised to indicate that later assessment is acceptable. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Mitomycin or cisplatin chemoradiation with or without maintenance chemotherapy for treatment of squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus (ACT II): a randomised, phase 3, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: Chemoradiation became the standard of care for anal cancer after the ACT I trial. However, only two-thirds of patients achieved local control, with 5-year survival of 50%; therefore, better treatments are needed. We investigated whether replacing mitomycin with cisplatin in chemoradiation improves response, and whether maintenance chemotherapy after chemoradiation improves survival. METHODS: In this 2 × 2 factorial trial, we enrolled patients with histologically confirmed squamous-cell carcinoma of the anus without metastatic disease from 59 centres in the UK. Patients were randomly assigned to one of four groups, to receive either mitomycin (12 mg/m(2) on day 1) or cisplatin (60 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 29), with fluorouracil (1000 mg/m(2) per day on days 1-4 and 29-32) and radiotherapy (50.4 Gy in 28 daily fractions); with or without two courses of maintenance chemotherapy (fluorouracil and cisplatin at weeks 11 and 14). The random allocation was generated by computer and patients assigned by telephone. Randomisation was done by minimisation and stratified by tumour site, T and N stage, sex, age, and renal function. Neither patients nor investigators were masked to assignment. Primary endpoints were complete response at 26 weeks and acute toxic effects (for chemoradiation), and progression-free survival (for maintenance). The primary analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered at controlled-trials.com, number 26715889. FINDINGS: We enrolled 940 patients: 472 were assigned to mitomycin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 226 to maintenance; 468 were assigned to cisplatin, of whom 246 were assigned to no maintenance, 222 to maintenance. Median follow-up was 5.1 years (IQR 3.9-6.9). 391 of 432 (90.5%) patients in the mitomycin group versus 386 of 431 (89.6%) in the cisplatin group had a complete response at 26 weeks (difference -0.9%, 95% CI -4.9 to 3.1; p=0.64). Overall, toxic effects were similar in each group (334/472 [71%] for mitomycin vs 337/468 [72%] for cisplatin). The most common grade 3-4 toxic effects were skin (228/472 [48%] vs 222/468 [47%]), pain (122/472 [26%] vs 135/468 [29%]), haematological (124/472 [26%] vs 73/468 [16%]), and gastrointestinal (75/472 [16%] vs 85/468 [18%]). 3-year progression-free survival was 74% (95% CI 69-77; maintenance) versus 73% (95% CI 68-77; no maintenance; hazard ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.75-1.21; p=0.70). INTERPRETATION: The results of our trial--the largest in anal cancer to date--show that fluorouracil and mitomycin with 50.4 Gy radiotherapy in 28 daily fractions should remain standard practice in the UK. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Prognostic factors for recurrence and survival in anal cancer: generating hypotheses from the mature outcomes of the first United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I).

BACKGROUND: Only 2 prospective studies have previously reported prognostic factors for anal cancer, European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer trial 22861 (EORTC 22861) and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group trial 98-11 (RTOG 98-11). Both of those trials reported that clinically positive lymph nodes and male sex predicted poorer overall survival (OS). The EORTC 22861 trial indicated that the same factors were prognostic for locoregional control. In the current report, the authors investigated potential prognostic factors from the first United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I), in which patients were randomized to receive either radiotherapy alone or chemoradiation (CRT) with concurrent 5-fluorouracil/mitomycin C. METHODS: In the ACT I trial, associations between several baseline characteristics and 3 endpoints were investigated: locoregional failure (LRF), anal cancer death (ACD), and OS. The analyses were restricted to 292 patients who received CRT, which subsequently became standard treatment. A score was derived using multivariable Cox regression to identify the set of factors that, together, had the best prognostic performance. This score was then validated with a large, independent prospective trial (the ACT II trial). RESULTS: Palpable, clinically positive lymph nodes were associated with LRF (P = .012), a greater risk of ACD (P = .031), and decreased OS (P = .006) in multivariable analyses. Men had worse outcomes than women for LRF (P = .036), ACD (P = .039), and OS (P = .008). On average, a lower hemoglobin level had an adverse effect on ACD (P = .008), and a higher white blood cell count had an adverse effect on OS (P = .001). However, external validation of the score was poor for LRF (area under the curve [AUC] = 54%) but was better for ACD (AUC = 67%) and OS (AUC = 63%). CONCLUSIONS: The results from this analysis of the ACT I trial supported evidence for palpable lymph nodes and male sex as prognostic factors for LRF and OS, and lower hemoglobin levels and a higher white blood cell count were identified as prognostic factors for ACD and OS, respectively.

Three cytotoxic drugs combined with pelvic radiation and as maintenance chemotherapy for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA): long-term follow-up of a phase II pilot study using 5-fluorouracil, mitomycin C and cisplatin.

PURPOSE: Phase III trials in the 1990s for squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) demonstrated 5-fluorouracil (5FU) and mitomycinC (MMC) chemoradiation (CRT) improved outcome compared to radiation (RT) alone, but local recurrence remained significant. This prospective pilot study intensified treatment by integrating 3 cytotoxic drugs into CRT and maintenance chemotherapy. METHODS: CRT comprised 5-FU 1000 mg/m(2) days 1-4,29-32, MMC 10 mg/m(2) day 1 and Cisplatin (CDDP) 60 mg/m(2) days1 and 29, with 45 Gy in 25 daily fractions, followed by a 15 Gy boost. Maintenance chemotherapy started 4-8 weeks later, three courses repeated every 21 days, using 5-FU/CDDP doses above, with MMC reduced to 7 mg/m(2) and administered with the first and third cycles. RESULTS: In CRT only 14/19 (74%) patients received protocol-defined chemotherapy doses in week 5. Compliance to maintenance chemotherapy was poor. 15/19 started cycle 1, 13 started cycle 2 and 11 cycle 3. 17/19 experienced G3-G5 toxicity (16 Grade 3/4 and one Grade 5). 16/19 patients (84%) remain alive and disease-free - median follow-up 79 months (34-115). CONCLUSIONS: Despite favourable results, the significant toxicity and low compliance of the three-drug CRT regimen used, deemed it unsuitable for testing in a phase III trial. A two-drug maintenance regimen was explored in the ACT II trial.

"Mind the gap"--the impact of variations in the duration of the treatment gap and overall treatment time in the first UK Anal Cancer Trial (ACT I).

PURPOSE: The United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research anal cancer trial demonstrated the benefit of combined modality treatment (CMT) using radiotherapy (RT), infusional 5-fluorouracil, and mitomycin C over RT alone. The present study retrospectively examines the impact of the recommended 6-week treatment gap and local RT boost on long-term outcome. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 577 patients were randomly assigned RT alone or CMT. After a 6-week gap responders received a boost using either additional external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) (15 Gy) or iridium-192 implant (25 Gy). The effect of boost, the gap between initial treatment (RT alone or CMT) and boost (Tgap), and overall treatment time (OTT) were examined for their impact on outcome. RESULTS: Among the 490 good responders, 436 (89%) patients received a boost after initial treatment. For boosted patients, the risk of anal cancer death decreased by 38% (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.62, 99% CI 0.35-1.12; p=0.04), but there was no evidence this was mediated via a reduction in locoregional failure (LRF) (HR: 0.90, 99% CI 0.48-1.68; p=0.66). The difference in Tgap was only 1.4 days longer for EBRT boost, compared with implant (p=0.51). OTT was longer by 6.1 days for EBRT (p=0.006). Tgap and OTT were not associated with LRF. Radionecrosis was reported in 8% of boosted, compared with 0% in unboosted patients (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: These results question the benefit of a radiotherapy boost after a 6-week gap. The higher doses of a boost may contribute more to an increased risk of late morbidity, rather than local control.