Management of tuberculous constrictive pericarditis and tuberculous pericardial effusion in Transkei: results at 10 years follow-up.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculous pericarditis is common in Transkei (Eastern Cape). Two randomized trials showed benefits at two years for prednisolone in patients with constrictive pericarditis, and open drainage plus prednisolone in patients with pericardial effusion. AIM: To see whether the advantages of prednisolone and open drainage were maintained up to 10 years. DESIGN: Follow-up of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. METHODS: All 383 patients (143 constriction, 240 effusion) received the same anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy. They were randomized to prednisolone or placebo for the first 11 weeks, and were followed-up over 10 years. Among the 240 with effusion, 122 were also randomized to immediate open surgical drainage of pericardial fluid versus pericardiocentesis as required. Adverse outcomes were: death from pericarditis, pericardiectomy, repeat pericardiocentesis, and subsequent open drainage. RESULTS: The 10-year follow-up rate was 96%. In constriction patients, adverse outcomes occurred in 19/70 (27%) prednisolone vs. 28/73 (38%) placebo (p = 0.15), deaths from pericarditis being 2 (3%) vs. 8 (11%), respectively (p = 0.098, Fisher's exact test). In effusion patients, adverse outcomes occurred in 14/27 (52%) with neither drainage nor prednisolone, vs. 4/29 (14%) drainage and prednisolone, 4/35 (11%) drainage and placebo, and 6/31 (19%) prednisolone and no drainage (p = 0.08 for interaction). Drainage eliminated the need for repeat pericardiocentesis. In the 176 with effusion and no drainage, adverse outcomes occurred in 17/88 (19%) prednisolone vs. 35/88 (40%) placebo patients (p = 0.003), with repeat pericardiocentesis 20 (23%) placebo vs. 9 (10%) prednisolone (p = 0.025). In a multivariate survival analysis (stratified by type of pericarditis), prednisolone reduced the overall death rate after adjusting for age and sex (p = 0.044), and substantially reduced the risk of death from pericarditis (p = 0.004). At 10 years, the great majority of surviving patients in all treatment groups were either fully active or out and about, even if activity was restricted. DISCUSSION: In the absence of a clear contraindication, a corticosteroid should be used in addition to antituberculosis chemotherapy in the management of patients with tuberculous pericarditis.

BTS randomised feasibility study of active symptom control with or without chemotherapy in malignant pleural mesothelioma: ISRCTN 54469112.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of mesothelioma is rising rapidly in the UK. There is no generally accepted standard treatment. The BTS recommends active symptom control (ASC). It is not known whether chemotherapy in addition prolongs survival or provides worthwhile palliation with acceptable toxicity. Palliation as recorded by patients has been fully reported for only two regimens: mitomycin, vinblastine, and cisplatin (MVP), and vinorelbine (N). The BTS and collaborators planned to conduct a phase III randomised trial comparing ASC only, ASC+MVP, and ASC+N in 840 patients with survival as the primary outcome measure. The aim of the present study was to assess the acceptability of the trial design to patients and the suitability of two standard quality of life (QL) questionnaires for mesothelioma. METHODS: Collaborating centres registered all new patients with mesothelioma. Those eligible and giving informed consent completed EORTC QLQ-C30+LC13 and FACT-L QL questionnaires and were randomised between all three or any two of (1) ASC only, (2) ASC+4 cycles of MVP, and (3) ASC+12 weekly doses of N. RESULTS: During 1 year, 242 patients were registered of whom 109 (45%) were randomised (55% of the 197 eligible patients). Fifty two patients from 20 centres were randomised to an option including ASC only. This translates into a rate of 312 per year from 60 centres interested in collaborating in the phase III trial. The EORTC QL questionnaire was superior to FACT-L in terms of completeness of data and patient preference. Clinically relevant palliation was achieved with ASC. CONCLUSION: The planned phase III trial is feasible.

A national survey of the chemotherapy regimens used to treat small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the United Kingdom.

Many chemotherapy regimens are used for treating SCLC in the United Kingdom, but it is not known, in any detail, which regimens are used, by which specialists, for which types of patient. We conducted a survey among all medical and clinical oncologists, respiratory physicians and general physicians with respiratory interest in the United Kingdom to find out. The questionnaire asked for the number of SCLC patients treated annually; how many were given chemotherapy; the drugs, doses and schedules chosen according to prognostic group (as defined by the clinician); and the reasons for choice of regimen. 1214 questionnaires were sent out, and responses were received from 1070 (88%) clinicians; 266 (25%) of these treated SCLC with chemotherapy. Of 4674 patients given chemotherapy annually, 36% were given it by clinical oncologists, 30% by medical oncologists, 27% by respiratory physicians, and 7% by general physicians. In all, 34 regimens were reported with 151 different combinations of dose and schedule. In 2311 good prognosis patients, 23 regimens were used, the commonest being ACE (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, etoposide), ICbE (ifosfamide, carboplatin, etoposide), CAV (cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine), CbE (carboplatin, etoposide), and PE (cisplatin, etoposide). In 1517 poor prognosis patients, 21 regimens were used, the commonest being CAV, EV (etoposide, vincristine), CbE, CAV alternating with PE, and oral etoposide. 452 patients were treated regardless of prognosis and for 219 no prognostic criteria were specified. The remaining 175 were given second-line chemotherapy or were given regimens chosen to avoid toxicity or because of intercurrent disease or other reasons. The main reasons affecting choice of regimen were routine local practice, patients' convenience, quality of life considerations, trial results and cost. The results show wide variation in routine practice and will be useful in reporting and planning clinical trials and in deciding on local treatment policies.

Preoperative radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: The existing randomized evidence has failed to conclusively demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of preoperative radiotherapy in treating patients with potentially resectable esophageal carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether there is benefit from adding radiotherapy prior to surgery and whether or not any pre-defined patient subgroups benefit more or less from preoperative radiotherapy SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline and CancerLit searches were supplemented by information from trial registers and by hand searching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists, organisations and industry. The search strategy was run again in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Library on 2nd May 2000, one year after original publication. No new trials were found. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis provided they randomized patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (of any histological type) to receive radiotherapy or no radiotherapy prior to surgery. Trials must have used a randomization method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment and completed accrual by December 1993, to ensure sufficient follow-up by the time of the first analysis (September 1995). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A quantitative meta-analysis using updated data from individual patients from all properly randomized trials (published or unpublished) comprising 1147 patients (971 deaths) from five randomized trials. This approach was used to assess whether preoperative radiotherapy improves overall survival and whether it is differentially effective in patients defined by age, sex and tumour location. MAIN RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 9 years, in a group patients with mostly squamous carcinomas, the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) suggests an overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% and an absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. This result is not conventionally statistically significant (p=0.062). No clear differences in the size of the effect by sex, age or tumor location were apparent. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing trials, there was no clear evidence that preoperative radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer. These results indicate that if such preoperative radiotherapy regimens do improve survival, then the effect is likely to be modest with an absolute improvement in survival of around 3 to 4%. Trials or a meta-analysis of around 2000 patients (90% power, 5% significance level) would be needed to reliably detect such an improvement (from 15 to 20%).

Important issues in planning and conducting multi-centre randomised trials in cancer and publishing their results.

The principles and practical issues involved in planning and conducting multi-centre randomised trials in cancer and in publishing their results are reviewed for the benefit of those conducting trials or planning to do so. There is increasing public awareness of the importance of randomised trials and this needs to be nurtured. Questions addressed by trials must be clinically worthwhile, and trials must be planned and conducted to provide reliable results that will convince the clinical community and influence future clinical practice to patients' benefit. Trial protocols must justify the trial and give clear and unambiguous instructions to collaborating centres. Only data necessary for answering the trial questions should be collected, and the reliability of data should be checked. All trials should be published in peer-reviewed journals, and ways should be considered of communicating their results to patients, their families and the public. Wide consultation and independent review are needed to achieve these aims.

Analysis of messy longitudinal data from a randomized clinical trial. MRC Lung Cancer Working Party.

The randomized clinical trial, LU19, conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party, was designed to compare ACE (doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide and etoposide) chemotherapy plus G-CSF (granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) at 2-week intervals versus ACE chemotherapy alone at standard 3-week intervals in patients with small-cell lung cancer. This trial investigated whether more intensive administration of ACE would improve overall survival and affect the quality of life of patients. The report on overall survival and other outcome measures will be published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology. In this paper we focus on methods of analysing aspects of data reflecting quality of life. Twelve symptoms of lung cancer and its treatment - cough, haemoptysis, pain, nausea, vomiting, hoarse voice, sore mouth, rash, lethargy, lack of appetite, alopecia, and dysphagia - were scheduled to be assessed on seven occasions for the ACE arm and on eight occasions for the ACE+G-CSF arm by clinicians during the first 18 weeks of the treatment period. However, in practice the number of assessment forms completed per patient ranged from 1 to 9, and assessment time-points were very different from those planned. These 'messy' longitudinal data are explored by both a summary measure approach, in which experience of a symptom is summarized by a single value, and an extensive model-based statistical approach, which explicitly takes into account correlation within repeated measures. These analyses provide a clear picture of symptom comparisons between the two treatments. The application of various methods offers not only an approach to assessing the robustness of the results but also a basis for investigating reasons for inconsistency of results across methods. We conclude that except lethargy, which is worse in the ACE+G-CSF arm, all symptoms are similar across the two arms during the treatment period.

Preoperative radiotherapy for esophageal carcinoma. Oeosphageal Cancer Collaborative Group.

BACKGROUND: The existing randomized evidence has failed to conclusively demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of preoperative radiotherapy in treating patients with potentially resectable esophageal carcinoma. OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether there is benefit from adding radiotherapy prior to surgery and whether or not any pre-defined patient subgroups benefit more or less from preoperative radiotherapy SEARCH STRATEGY: Medline and CancerLit searches were supplemented by information from trial registers and by hand searching relevant meeting proceedings and by discussion with relevant trialists, organisations and industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were eligible for inclusion in this meta-analysis provided they randomized patients with potentially resectable carcinoma of the esophagus (of any histological type) to receive radiotherapy or no radiotherapy prior to surgery. Trials must have used a randomization method which precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment and completed accrual by December 1993, to ensure sufficient follow-up by the time of the first analysis (September 1995). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: A quantitative meta-analysis using updated data from individual patients from all properly randomized trials (published or unpublished) comprising 1147 patients (971 deaths) from five randomized trials. This approach was used to assess whether preoperative radiotherapy improves overall survival and whether it is differentially effective in patients defined by age, sex and tumour location. MAIN RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 9 years, in a group patients with mostly squamous carcinomas, the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) suggests an overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% and an absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. This result is not conventionally statistically significant (p=0.062). No clear differences in the size of the effect by sex, age or tumor location were apparent. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Based on existing trials, there was no clear evidence that preoperative radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer. These results indicate that if such preoperative radiotherapy regimens do improve survival, then the effect is likely to be modest with an absolute improvement in survival of around 3 to 4%. Trials or a meta-analysis of around 2000 patients (90% power, 5% significance level) would be needed to reliably detect such an improvement (from 15 to 20%).

Improving survival without reducing quality of life in small-cell lung cancer patients by increasing the dose-intensity of chemotherapy with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support: results of a British Medical Research Council Multicenter Randomized Trial. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party.

PURPOSE: The treatment of small-cell lung cancer patients with good performance status aims to improve survival. Dose-intensification could be a way to achieve improved survival but can be limited by neutropenia and thrombocytopenia. Preliminary, nonrandomized feasibility studies showed that doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide (ACE) could be given every 2 (instead of the usual 3) weeks with granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) (lenograstim; Chugai-Rh¿one-Poulenc, Tokyo, Japan) support. The present multicenter randomized trial was designed to examine whether such dose-intensification improves survival while maintaining acceptable toxicity levels. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients were randomized to receive six cycles of ACE either every 3 weeks (control [C] group) or every 2 weeks with G-CSF (G group). The standard dose-intensity of ACE was increased by 50% in group G. RESULTS: Four hundred and three patients (G group: n = 201; C group: n = 202) were randomized. The received dose-intensity was 34% higher in the G group than in the C group. Complete response rates were 40% for the G group and 28% for the C group (P =.02), and overall rates were 78% for the G group and 79% for the C group. Survival was longer in the G group (hazard ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.65 to 0.99; P =.04), survival rates for the G and C groups being 47% and 39% at 12 months and 13% and 8% at 24 months, respectively. Metastasis-free survival, nonhematologic toxicity, and quality of life were similar in the two groups. In the G group, there was less neutropenia but more thrombocytopenia and more frequent blood and platelet transfusions. CONCLUSION: Increasing the dose-intensity of ACE with G-CSF support improved survival while maintaining acceptable toxicity.

Treatment of endotracheal or endobronchial obstruction by non-small cell lung cancer: lack of patients in an MRC randomized trial leaves key questions unanswered. Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party.

Symptoms of endotracheal or endobronchial obstruction caused by non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) may be relieved with external beam radiotherapy (XRT) or endobronchial treatment. The comparative roles of these two methods need to be established. Patients with predominantly intraluminal obstruction of the trachea, a main bronchus or a lobar bronchus by unresectable NSCLC were randomized to XRT versus the clinician's choice of endobronchial treatment with brachytherapy, laser resection or cryotherapy, according to local availability and practice. Clinicians' assessments included symptoms of obstruction, WHO performance status, lung function tests and adverse effects of treatment. Patients completed a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist at all assessments and a daily diary card to record the severity of major symptoms during the first 4 weeks. To show a difference of 15% in the relief of breathlessness rates at 4 months (from 65% to 80%), 400 patients were required. In spite of our many previously successful lung cancer trials, and initial interest from clinicians in 24 UK centres, who estimated they could randomize 200 patients per year into the present trial, only 75 patients were randomized from seven centres over 3.5 years. Intake to the trial was therefore abandoned in November 1996 although an independent Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee had concluded in April 1996 that the scientific case for the trial was still strong; there were no competing trials; there were no design problems; and much had been done to promote the trial. The main reasons given by centres for the slow intake were: lack of referrals of untreated patients; patients being referred specifically for endobronchial treatment; patients having already received XRT; emergency endobronchial relief of obstruction being necessary; and XRT and endobronchial treatment being considered complementary and not as alternatives. The relative advantages and disadvantages of XRT versus endobronchial treatment remain to be determined. The lack of recruitment to this trial raises the issue of innovative techniques not being given the chance of proving their worth compared with traditional treatments.

Defining and analysing symptom palliation in cancer clinical trials: a deceptively difficult exercise.

The assessment of symptom palliation is an essential component of many treatment comparisons in clinical trials, yet an extensive literature search revealed no consensus as to its precise definition, which could embrace relief of symptoms, time to their onset, duration, degree, as well as symptom control and prevention. In an attempt to assess the importance of these aspects and to compare different methods of analysis, we used one symptom (cough) from a patient self-assessment questionnaire (the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist) in a large (>300 patient) multicentre randomized clinical trial (conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party) of palliative chemotherapy in small-cell lung cancer. The regimens compared were a two-drug regimen (2D) and a four-drug regimen (4D). No differences were seen between the regimens in time of onset of palliation or its duration. The degree of palliation was strongly related to the initial severity: 90% of the patients with moderate or severe cough at baseline reported improvement, compared with only 53% of those with mild cough. Analyses using different landmark time points gave conflicting results: the 4D regimen was superior at 1 month and at 3 months, whereas at 2 months the 2D regimen appeared superior. When improvement at any time up to 3 months was considered, the 4D regimen showed a significant benefit (4D 79%, 2D 60%, P = 0.02). These findings emphasize the need for caution in interpreting results, and the importance of working towards a standard definition of symptom palliation. The current lack of specified criteria makes analysis and interpretation of trial results difficult, and comparison across trials impossible. A standard definition of palliation for use in the analysis of clinical trials data is proposed, which takes into account aspects of onset, duration and degree of palliation, and symptom improvement, control and prevention.

Preoperative radiotherapy in esophageal carcinoma: a meta-analysis using individual patient data (Oesophageal Cancer Collaborative Group).

PURPOSE: The existing randomized evidence has failed to conclusively demonstrate the benefit or otherwise of preoperative radiotherapy in treating patients with potentially resectable esophageal carcinoma. This meta-analysis aimed to assess whether there is benefit from adding radiotherapy prior to surgery. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This quantitative meta-analysis included updated individual patient data from all properly randomized trials (published or unpublished) comprising 1147 patients (971 deaths) from five randomized trials. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 9 years, the hazard ratio (HR) of 0.89 (95% CI 0.78-1.01) suggests an overall reduction in the risk of death of 11% and an absolute survival benefit of 3% at 2 years and 4% at 5 years. This result is not conventionally statistically significant (p = 0.062). No clear differences in the size of the effect by sex, age, or tumor location were apparent. CONCLUSION: Based on existing trials, there was no clear evidence that preoperative radiotherapy improves the survival of patients with potentially resectable esophageal cancer. These results indicate that if such preoperative radiotherapy regimens do improve survival, then the effect is likely to be modest with an absolute improvement in survival of around 3 to 4%. Trials or a meta-analysis of around 2000 patients would be needed to reliably detect such an improvement (15-->20%).

Survey of the Administration of quality of life (QL) questionnaires in three multicentre randomised trials in cancer. The Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party the CHART Steering Committee.

We surveyed centres collaborating in two trials in lung cancer (LU12, LU13) and one in lung and head and neck cancer (CHART) to find out how QL questionnaires were being administered, with the aim of standardising procedures and improving compliance. Dedicated local trials staff were funded for CHART but not for the other trials. In all three trials, patients completed a Rotterdam Symptom Checklist (RSCL) and a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at specified times. 17 of 22 LU12 centres, 9 of 11 LU13 and all 10 CHART centres returned survey forms. In LU12 and LU13, the category of staff responsible for questionnaires varied widely; in CHART, only research staff were involved. This led to more consistency in CHART centres in the administration and collection of questionnaires, and more frequent checking of forms. However, even the CHART administration, although better than in the other two trials, could not be regarded as standardised. All centres were equally affected by logistical problems. These embraced organisational deficits (e.g. unavailability of staff, lack of questionnaires) and patient-related factors (e.g. patient deemed to be too ill, had difficulty reading or left before completing the form). Patient refusals were an uncommon reason for non-compliance and patients were considered to be generally in favour of QL assessment. As a result of these findings, a number of measures have been put in place to increase standardisation of procedures and improve compliance. These include publishing guidelines for protocol writing, providing centres with guidelines for QL administration and information leaflets for patients, together with introducing staff training.

Survey on the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in England and Wales.

As an adjunct to a meta-analysis of chemotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), a survey was conducted in England and Wales of clinicians' views on the role of chemotherapy in NSCLC and the benefits it would have to offer to lead them to change their practice. Radiotherapists, medical oncologists, surgeons and physicians specializing in thoracic medicine, and physicians of palliative medicine were asked their views on the treatment of three case histories of 65 yr old men: Case 1, resected tumour involving a hilar lymph node (tumour (T)2, node (N)1, metastasis (M)0); Case 2, tumour that had spread to mediastinal lymph nodes bilaterally (T2, N3, M0); and Case 3, metastatic cancer (M1) accompanied by minor haemoptysis. Six hundred and ninety eight (85%) of the 821 clinicians responded. For Case 1, 74% would not recommend any adjuvant treatment, 24% would recommend radiotherapy, and <1% chemotherapy, and there was little expectation that adjuvant treatment would improve survival. For Case 2, 68% would recommend radiotherapy, 11% chemotherapy, and 1% surgery, 7% recommending a combination. Adjuvant treatment, regardless of modality, was expected to improve survival. For Case 3, only 11% would recommend chemotherapy, but 26% if the patient was aged < or = 50 yrs. There was little expectation of survival beyond 1 yr, or of improving survival with chemotherapy. For all three cases, most of those not recommending chemotherapy would require it to achieve substantially improved survival for them to use it routinely. Surgery alone is currently considered sufficient for resectable non-small cell lung cancer. Chemotherapy is rarely recommended for disease of any stage.

Randomized trials with quality of life endpoints: are doctors' ratings of patients' physical symptoms interchangeable with patients' self-ratings?

The assessment of physical symptoms is a key component of quality of life studies in palliative care, but is often hampered by missing data from patient-completed questionnaires. In two large multicentre randomized trials of palliative treatment conducted by the Medical Research Council Lung Cancer Working Party, Involving over 700 patients, patients completed Rotterdam Symptom Checklists and doctors reported on eleven of the same physical symptoms at each assessment, using the same 4-point severity scale. Ratings by doctors and patients were compared with respect to compliance, severity, and outcomes for the respective trials. Doctors provided more data than patients: 66% vs. 52% in the first 6 months in one trial, 58% vs. 61% in the other. Comparisons of over 33,000 symptom assessments showed 78% complete agreement between doctor and patient, 18% disagreement by one, 4% two, and 1% three grades (complete disagreement). There was no change in levels of agreement over time, but increasing disagreement with increasing symptom severity, and a consistent bias towards doctors underestimating severity. Nevertheless, the two methods of data collection resulted in similar between-treatment conclusions. Therefore, in randomized trials the doctors' assessments of key physical symptoms may be sufficient for the between-treatment comparison. However, the fact that doctors underestimate symptom severity 15% of the time has important implications for palliative interventions.

Thirty years of Medical Research Council randomized trials in solid tumours.

This paper reviews the survival outcome from the randomized Phase III trials in solid tumours published on behalf of, or in collaboration with, the Cancer Therapy Committee (CTC) of the British Medical Research Council over a 30-year period to 31 December 1995. We review briefly the innovations in statistical methodology that have occurred over the period. We also note the ways in which standards of reporting the trials have improved, with more recent publications including, for example, estimates of the size of effect and confidence intervals. In all, 32 trials, involving over 5000 deaths in more than 8000 patients, have been published. Tumour types have included bladder, bone, brain, cervix, colon and rectum, head and neck, kidney, lung, ovary, prostate and skin. This paper presents a bibliography of these trials and gives details of the treatment comparisons made, the numbers of patients randomized and included in the analysis for each treatment arm, the observed numbers of deaths, and an estimate of the hazard ratio with associated 95% confidence intervals. The bibliography also indicates the main endpoint of each trial, whether recurrence-free survival or survival, and whether the trial was aimed at finding a difference or showing equivalence. The MRC trials have made an impact on both clinical practice and research activities. For example, the lung cancer programme has helped to establish the role of chemotherapy in small cell lung cancer and has developed better palliative treatment for non-small cell lung cancer. Trials of the radiosensitizer misonidazole have demonstrated that it has no role in the treatment of a number of cancers, trials of hyperbaric oxygen have defined the biological activity of this approach, and the appropriate dose of radiotherapy in patients with brain tumours has been found. The individual trials recruited between 44 and 824 patients (median 213). A better measure of the information in a trial is the number of deaths reported, which varied from 28 to 661 (median 145). A large proportion of the comparisons (8/29 or 28%) anticipating a survival difference, demonstrated such a difference at the 5% level of significance. Despite this, it is concluded that some of the trials should have been larger. In such cases, hindsight suggests either that an overoptimistic view of the anticipated survival benefit was taken at the design stage, or, for equivalence trials, the planned confidence interval was too wide for definitive statements to be made. As a consequence, the current CTC profolio of ongoing randomized trials open to patient accrual at 1 January 1996 have a projected median size of 600 and range from 120 to 2000 patients.

Quality of life assessment in clinical trials--guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the U.K. Medical Research Council experience. MRC Cancer Trials Office.

Many clinical trials groups now routinely consider including Quality of Life (QoL) assessment in trials. Indeed, several have policies stating that QoL should be considered as a potential endpoint in all new trials and that if it is not to be evaluated the applicants should justify not doing so. However, inclusion of QoL in clinical trials presents a number of difficult organisational issues, and serious problems in compliance have frequently been reported. Thus, in multicentre clinical trials many of the expected QoL questionnaires fail to be successfully completed and returned, although a few groups have claimed high success rates. However, it is well recognised that if questionnaires are missing, there may be bias in the interpretation of trial results, and the estimates of treatment differences and the overall level of QoL may be inaccurate and misleading. Hence it is important to seek methods of improving compliance, at the level of both the participating institution and the patient. We describe a number of methods for addressing these issues, which we suggest should be considered by all those writing clinical trial protocols involving QoL assessment. These are based upon over a decade of experience with assessing QoL in Medical Research Council (MRC) cancer clinical trials. In particular, we provide a checklist for points that should be covered in protocols. Examples are given from a range of current MRC Cancer Trials Office protocols, which it is proposed might act as templates when writing new protocols.

Prophylactic cranial irradiation is indicated following complete response to induction therapy in small cell lung cancer: results of a multicentre randomised trial. United Kingdom Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research (UKCCCR) and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)

Prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) reduces the risk of cranial metastasis in small cell lung cancer (SCLC), but the magnitude and value of this reduction, the risks of radiation morbidity and whether PCI influences survival are unclear. We conducted a randomised trial in patients with limited-stage SCLC who had had a complete response to induction therapy. Initially, patients were randomised equally to (1) PCI 36 Gy in 18 daily fractions, (2) PCI 24 Gy in 12 fractions and (3) no PCI; subsequently, to increase the rate of accrual, randomisation was to clinicians' choice of PCI regimen versus no PCI (at a 3:2 ratio). The endpoints were appearance of brain metastases, survival, cognitive function, and quality of life (QoL). Three hundred and fourteen patients (194 PCI, 120 No PCI) were randomised. In the revised design, the most commonly used PCI regimens were 30 Gy in 10 fractions and 8 Gy in a single dose. With PCI, there was a large and highly significant reduction in brain metastases (HR = 0.44, 95% CI 0.29-0.67), a significant advantage in brain-metastasis-free survival (HR = 0.75, 95% CI 0.58-0.96) and a non-significant overall survival advantage (HR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.66-1.12). In both groups, there was impairment of cognitive function and QoL before PCI and additional impairment at 6 months and 1 year, but no consistent difference between the two groups and thus no evidence over 1 year of major impairment attributable to PCI. PCI can safely reduce the risk of brain metastases. Further research is needed to define optimal dose and fractionation and to clarify the effect on survival. Patients with SCLC achieving a complete response to induction therapy should be offered PCI.