Aspirin as an adjuvant treatment for cancer: feasibility results from the Add-Aspirin randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Preclinical, epidemiological, and randomised data indicate that aspirin might prevent tumour development and metastasis, leading to reduced cancer mortality, particularly for gastro-oesophageal and colorectal cancer. Randomised trials evaluating aspirin use after primary radical therapy are ongoing. We present the pre-planned feasibility analysis of the run-in phase of the Add-Aspirin trial to address concerns about toxicity, particularly bleeding after radical treatment for gastro-oesophageal cancer. METHODS: The Add-Aspirin protocol includes four phase 3 randomised controlled trials evaluating the effect of daily aspirin on recurrence and survival after radical cancer therapy in four tumour cohorts: gastro-oesophageal, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer. An open-label run-in phase (aspirin 100 mg daily for 8 weeks) precedes double-blind randomisation (for participants aged under 75 years, aspirin 300 mg, aspirin 100 mg, or matched placebo in a 1:1:1 ratio; for patients aged 75 years or older, aspirin 100 mg or matched placebo in a 2:1 ratio). A preplanned analysis of feasibility, including recruitment rate, adherence, and toxicity was performed. The trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry (ISRCTN74358648) and remains open to recruitment. FINDINGS: After 2 years of recruitment (October, 2015, to October, 2017), 3494 participants were registered (115 in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort, 950 in the colorectal cancer cohort, 1675 in the breast cancer cohort, and 754 in the prostate cancer cohort); 2719 (85%) of 3194 participants who had finished the run-in period proceeded to randomisation, with rates consistent across tumour cohorts. End of run-in data were available for 2253 patients; 2148 (95%) of the participants took six or seven tablets per week. 11 (0·5%) of the 2253 participants reported grade 3 toxicity during the run-in period, with no upper gastrointestinal bleeding (any grade) in the gastro-oesophageal cancer cohort. The most frequent grade 1-2 toxicity overall was dyspepsia (246 [11%] of 2253 participants). INTERPRETATION: Aspirin is well-tolerated after radical cancer therapy. Toxicity has been low and there is no evidence of a difference in adherence, acceptance of randomisation, or toxicity between the different cancer cohorts. Trial recruitment continues to determine whether aspirin could offer a potential low cost and well tolerated therapy to improve cancer outcomes. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme, The MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL.

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment. DESIGN: A single-stage phase II trial. SETTING: South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study. INTERVENTION: Consenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs' evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis. RESULTS: Of those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload. CONCLUSIONS: PN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13314752; Results.

Cancer suspicion in general practice, urgent referral, and time to diagnosis: a population-based GP survey nested within a feasibility study using information technology to flag-up patients with symptoms of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with symptoms of possible colorectal cancer are not always referred for investigation. AIM: To ascertain barriers and facilitators to GP referral of patients meeting the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines for urgent referral for suspected colorectal cancer. DESIGN & SETTING: Qualitative study in the context of a feasibility study using information technology in GP practices to flag-up patients meeting urgent referral criteria for colorectal cancer. METHOD: Semi-structured interview with 18 GPs and 12 practice managers, focusing on early detection of colorectal cancer, issues in the use of information technology to identify patients and GP referral of these patients for further investigation were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analysed according to emergent themes. RESULTS: There were two main themes: wide variation in willingness to refer and uncertainty about whether to refer; and barriers to referral. Three key messages emerged: there was a desire to avoid over-referral, lack of knowledge of guidelines, and the use of individually-derived decision rules for further investigation or referral of symptoms. Some GPs were unaware that iron deficiency anaemia or persistent diarrhoea are urgent referral criteria. Alternatives to urgent referral included undertaking no investigations, trials of iron therapy, use of faecal occult blood tests (FOBt) and non-urgent referral. In minority ethnic groups (South Asians) anaemia was often accepted as normal.Concerns about over-referral were linked to financial pressures and perceived criticism by healthcare commissioners, and a reluctance to scare patients by discussing suspected cancer. CONCLUSION: GPs' lack of awareness of referral guidelines and concerns about over-referral are barriers to early diagnosis of colorectal cancer.

Using Specialist Screening Practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of the Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening Programme: a study protocol for a feasibility single-stage phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme offers men and women aged 55 years a once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), a test that can help reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the benefits of BSS are contingent on uptake. This National Institute for Health Research-funded single-stage phase II trial will test the feasibility of using patient navigation (PN), an intervention that offers support to patients to overcome barriers to healthcare, to increase BSS uptake within a socially deprived area of England. METHODS/DESIGN: All individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust during the 6-month recruitment period will be invited to take part in the study. Consenting participants will be randomised to receive PN or usual care in a 2:1 ratio. PN involves non-attenders receiving a phone call from a Specialist Screening Practitioner (SSP) who will elicit reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical, and emotional support as needed. If requested by the patient, another appointment for BSS will then be arranged. We anticipate 30 % of participants will be non-attenders. Using A'Hern single-stage design, with 20 % significance level and 80 % power, at least 35 participants who receive PN need to subsequently attend for PN to be considered worthy of further investigation in a definitive trial. The primary outcome measure will be the number of participants in the PN group who re-book and attend their BSS appointment. A qualitative analysis of the PN transcripts, and interviews with the SSPs, will also be conducted, alongside a quantitative analysis of completed patient-reported experience questionnaires. An economic analysis will calculate the costs of delivering PN. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study will be instrumental in deciding whether to conduct the first definitive trial of PN in BSS in England. If PN is subsequently shown to be cost-effective at increasing uptake of BSS, NHS policies could be modified to implement PN as a standard service. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN13314752.

ADD-ASPIRIN: A phase III, double-blind, placebo controlled, randomised trial assessing the effects of aspirin on disease recurrence and survival after primary therapy in common non-metastatic solid tumours.

BACKGROUND: There is a considerable body of pre-clinical, epidemiological and randomised data to support the hypothesis that aspirin has the potential to be an effective adjuvant cancer therapy. METHODS: Add-Aspirin is a phase III, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial with four parallel cohorts. Patients who have undergone potentially curative treatment for breast (n=3100), colorectal (n=2600), gastro-oesophageal (n=2100) or prostate cancer (n=2120) are registered into four tumour specific cohorts. All cohorts recruit in the United Kingdom, with the breast and gastro-oesophageal cohort also recruiting in India. Eligible participants first undertake an active run-in period where 100mg aspirin is taken daily for approximately eight weeks. Participants who are able to adhere and tolerate aspirin then undergo a double-blind randomisation and are allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to either 100mg aspirin, 300mg aspirin or a matched placebo to be taken daily for at least five years. Those participants ≥75years old are only randomised to 100mg aspirin or placebo due to increased toxicity risk. RESULTS: The primary outcome measures are invasive disease-free survival for the breast cohort, disease-free survival for the colorectal cohort, overall survival for the gastro-oesophageal cohort, and biochemical recurrence-free survival for the prostate cohort, with a co-primary outcome of overall survival across all cohorts. Secondary outcomes include adherence, toxicity including serious haemorrhage, cardiovascular events and some cohort specific measures. CONCLUSIONS: The Add-Aspirin trial investigates whether regular aspirin use after standard therapy prevents recurrence and prolongs survival in participants with four non-metastatic common solid tumours.

Uptake of Bowel Scope (Flexible Sigmoidoscopy) Screening in the English National Programme: the first 14 months.

OBJECTIVE: To examine uptake in the first six pilot centres of the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme, which began in early 2013 and invites adults aged 55 for a one off Flexible Sigmoidoscopy. METHODS: Between March 2013 and May 2014 the six pilot centres sent 21,187 invitations. Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, we examined variation in uptake by gender, socioeconomic deprivation (using the Index of Multiple Deprivation), area-based ethnic diversity (proportion of non-white residents), screening centre, and appointment time (routine: daytime vs out-of-hours: evening/weekend). RESULTS: Uptake was 43.1%. Men were more likely to attend than women (45% vs 42%; OR 1.136, 95% CI 1.076, 1.199, p < 0.001). Combining data across centres, there was a socioeconomic gradient in uptake, ranging from 33% in the most deprived to 53% in the least deprived quintile. Areas with the highest level of ethnic diversity also had lower uptake (39%) than other areas (41-47%) (all p < 0.02), but there was no gradient. Individuals offered a routine appointment were less likely to attend than those offered an out-of-hours appointment (42% vs. 44%; OR 0.931, 95% CI 0.882, 0.983, p = 0.01). Multivariate analyses confirmed independent effects of deprivation, gender, and centre, but not of ethnic diversity or appointment time. CONCLUSION: Early indications of uptake are encouraging. Future efforts should focus on increasing public awareness of the programme and reducing socioeconomic inequalities.