The Challenge of Clinical Research and Suicidality: Participant Feedback on a Safety Protocol.

Objective: Clinical studies of depression have historically excluded participants with suicidal ideation. Research participant safety protocols are critical to allow for the much-needed study of suicide risk. This report summarizes participant feedback about the safety protocol used in a national, remote study of perinatal women with suicidal ideation.Methods: Upon completion of the study, participants who had triggered the suicidality safety protocol during the study were invited to complete a brief survey with questions about their experiences with the protocol. The survey included 4 Likert-scale questions and 1 open text question where participants could provide feedback, suggestions, and comments to the research team. Participant feedback survey data were collected between October 2021 and April 2022, and this research was funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.Results: Of the 45 participants enrolled in the UPWARD-S study, 16 triggered the safety protocol. All eligible participants (N = 16) completed the survey. Among respondents, most were at least neutral to very comfortable with the call from the study psychiatrist (75% [n = 12]) and reported that the call had a "positive impact" on their well-being (69% [n = 11]). After the call with the study psychiatrist, 50% of participants (n = 8) reported that they increased engagement with treatment for depression, and the other 50% reported no change in treatment. We also report on themes from the qualitative feedback regarding suggestions of how to modify or improve the safety protocol.Conclusions: Learning from the experiences of research participants will provide unique insight into satisfaction with, and impact of, the implemented suicidality safety protocol. Findings from this study could inform the refinement and implementation of safety protocols used in depression studies as well as future research on the impact of such protocols.

To screen or not to screen: Are we asking the right question? In response to considering de-implementation of universal perinatal depression screening.

This Editorial is a response to the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's recent recommendation "against instrument-based depression screening using a questionnaire with cut-off score to distinguish 'screen positive' and 'screen negative' administered to all individuals during pregnancy and the postpartum period (up to 1 year after childbirth)." While we acknowledge the gaps and limitations in research on perinatal mental health screening, we have concerns regarding the potential impact of a recommendation against screening and for "de-implementation" of existing perinatal depression screening practices, particularly if there is not careful attention to the specificity as well as limitations of the recommendation, or if there are not clear alternative systems put in place to support the detection of perinatal depression. In this manuscript, we highlight some of our key concerns and suggest considerations for perinatal mental health practitioners and researchers.

Comparison of investigator-delineated gross tumor volumes and quality assurance in pancreatic cancer: Analysis of the pretrial benchmark case for the SCALOP trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To evaluate the variation in investigator-delineated volumes and assess plans from the radiotherapy trial quality assurance (RTTQA) program of SCALOP, a phase II trial in locally advanced pancreatic cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Participating investigators (n=25) outlined a pre-trial benchmark case as per RT protocol, and the accuracy of investigators' GTV (iGTV) and PTV (iPTV) was evaluated, against the trials team-defined gold standard GTV (gsGTV) and PTV (gsPTV), using both qualitative and geometric analyses. The median Jaccard Conformity Index (JCI) and Geographical Miss Index (GMI) were calculated. Participating RT centers also submitted a radiotherapy plan for this benchmark case, which was centrally reviewed against protocol-defined constraints. RESULTS: Twenty-five investigator-defined contours were evaluated. The median JCI and GMI of iGTVs were 0.57 (IQR: 0.51-0.65) and 0.26 (IQR: 0.15-0.40). For iPTVs, these were 0.75 (IQR: 0.71-0.79) and 0.14 (IQR: 0.11-0.22) respectively. Qualitative analysis showed largest variation at the tumor edges and failure to recognize a peri-pancreatic lymph node. There were no major protocol deviations in RT planning, but three minor PTV coverage deviations were identified. . CONCLUSIONS: SCALOP demonstrated considerable variation in iGTV delineation. RTTQA workshops and real-time central review of delineations are needed in future trials.