Search

Background At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, elective surgical provision was severely affected by the need for hospital reorganization to care for critically ill patients. In response, National Health Service (NHS) England issued national guidance proposing acceptable time intervals for postponing different types of surgical procedure. This study reports healthcare professionals’ private accounts of the strategies adopted to manage the imbalance of demand and resource, using colorectal cancer surgery as a case study. Methods Twenty-seven semistructured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals between June and November 2020. A key informant sampling approach was used, followed by snowballing to achieve maximum regional variation across the UK. Data were analysed thematically using the constant comparison approach. Results In the context of considerable resource constraint, surgical teams overcame challenges to continue elective cancer provision. They achieved this by pursuing a combination of strategies: relocating surgical services; prioritizing patients within and across surgical specialties; adapting patient treatment plans; and introducing changes to surgical team working practices. Despite national guidance, prioritization decisions were framed as complex, and the most challenging of the strategies to implement, both practically and emotionally. Conclusion There is a need to better support surgeons tasked with prioritizing patients when capacity exceeds demand.

Background:. Mammographic screening programmes have been shown to reduce breast cancer mortality. However, they detect many small tumours with favourable biological features which may not progress during a woman’s lifetime. These are treated with standard surgery and adjuvant therapies, which have associated morbidities. Thus, there is a need to reduce overtreatment of good prognosis tumours found by screening. Minimally invasive treatment approaches have been described but there is no prospective randomised evidence to support their routine use. Vacuum-assisted excision (VAE) is in widespread use for management of benign lesions and lesions of uncertain malignant potential. SMALL (ISRCTN 12240119) is designed to determine the feasibility of using this approach for treatment of small invasive tumours detected within the UK NHS Breast Screening Programme (BSP). Methods:. SMALL is a phase III multicentre randomised trial comparing standard surgery with VAE for screen-detected good prognosis breast cancers. The main eligibility criteria are age ≥47 years, screen-detected unifocal grade 1 tumours with maximum diameter 15mm, which are strongly ER/PR+ve and HER2-ve, with negative clinical/radiological axillary staging. Patients are randomised 2:1 in favour of VAE or surgery; with no axillary surgery in the VAE arm. Completeness of excision is assessed radiologically, and if excision is incomplete, patients undergo open surgery. Adjuvant radiotherapy and endocrine therapy are mandated in the VAE arm but may be omitted following surgery. Co-primary end-points are:1.Non-inferiority comparison of the requirement for a second procedure following excision2.Single arm analysis of local recurrence (LR) at 5 years following VAE. Recruitment of 800 patients over 4 years will permit demonstration of 10% non-inferiority of VAE for requirement of a second procedure. This ensures sufficient patients for single arm analysis of LR rates, where expected LR free survival is 99% at 5 years, with an undesirable survival probability after VAE of 97%. To ensure that the trial as a whole only has 5% alpha, the significance level for each co-primary outcome is set at 2.5% with 90% power. The Data Monitoring Committee will monitor LR events to ensure these do not exceed 3% per year. Secondary outcome measures include time to ipsilateral recurrence, overall survival, complications, quality of life and health economic analysis. A QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) is integrated throughout SMALL to optimise recruitment and informed consent. Recruitment challenges are identified by analysing recruiter/patient interviews and audio-recordings of trial discussions, and by review of screening, eligibility and recruitment data and study documentation. Solutions to address these are developed collaboratively, including individual/group recruiter feedback and recruitment tips documents. Results:. SMALL opened in December 2019, but recruitment halted in 2020 due to suspension of the NHS BSP for 5 months due to COVID-19. As of 1st July 2021, 55 patients had been approached in 10 centres, with 33 patients randomised (randomisation rate 60%). A further 23 centres are in set-up, with 8 suspended due to the pandemic. Drawing from preliminary QRI findings and insights from patient representatives, a recruitment tips document has been circulated (on introducing and discussing SMALL, providing balanced information. on treatment options and explaining randomisation). individual recruiter feedback has commenced, with wider feedback planned shortly. Conclusion:. Despite pandemic-related challenges, SMALL has an excellent recruitment rate to date and is expected to have a global impact on treatment of breast cancer within mammographic screening programmes. SMALL is funded by the UK NIHR HTA programme, award 17/42/32 Citation Format: Stuart A McIntosh, Charlotte E Coles, Carmel Conefrey, David Dodwell, Kenneth Elder, Jessica Foster, Claire Gaunt, Amanda Kirkham, Iain Lyburn, Jenna Morgan, Sangeetha Paramasivan, Sarah Pinder, Sarah Pirrie, Shelley Potter, Tracy Roberts, Nisha Sharma, Hilary Stobart, Elizabeth Southgate, Sian Taylor-Phillips, Matthew Wallis, Daniel Rea. SMALL - Open surgery versus minimally invasive vacuum-assisted excision for small screen detected breast cancer: A phase 3 randomised trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2021 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2021 Dec 7-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2022;82(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-06-02.

BackgroundAs set out in the Climate Change Act (2008), the UK National Health Service (NHS) has made a commitment to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 and reach net zero by 2050. Research forms a core part of NHS activity and reducing the carbon footprint of clinical trials is a core element of the National Institute for Health and Care Research Carbon Reduction Strategy (2019).Key argumentsHowever, support from funding organisations on how to achieve these targets is lacking. This brief communication article reports the reduction in the carbon footprint of the NightLife study, an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled trial assessing the impact of in-centre nocturnal haemodialysis on quality of life.ConclusionBy using remote conferencing software and innovative data collection methods, we demonstrated a total saving of 136 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent over three workstreams during the first 18 months of the study, following grant activation on 1 January 2020. In addition to the environmental impact, there were additional benefits seen to cost as well as increased participant diversity and inclusion. This work highlights ways in which trials could be made less carbon intensive, more environmentally sustainable and better value for money.

Background: Multi-parameter tumour gene expression assays (MPAs) are widely used to estimate individual patient risk and to guide chemotherapy use in hormone-sensitive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. The TAILORx trial supports MPA use in a node-negative population. Evidence in node-positive breast cancer is limited. OPTIMA (Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multi-parameter Analysis) (ISRCTN42400492) is a prospective international randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to validate MPA’s as predictors of chemotherapy sensitivity in a largely node-positive breast cancer population. Methods: OPTIMA is a partially blinded study with an adaptive two-stage design. The main eligibility criteria are women and men age 40 or older with resected ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer and up to 9 involved axillary lymph nodes. Randomisation is to standard management (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or to MPA-directed treatment using the Prosigna (PAM50) test. Those with a Prosigna tumour Score (ROR_PT) >60 receive standard management whilst those with a low score (≤60) are treated with endocrine therapy alone. Endocrine therapy for pre-menopausal women includes ovarian suppression. Prosigna tests are currently performed only for participants randomised to MPA-directed treatment. More than 1 tumour may be tested if participants have multi-focal tumours with discordant features and/or are considered clinically significant. The co-primary outcomes are: (1) Invasive Disease Free Survival (IDFS) and (2) cost-effectiveness. Secondary outcomes include IDFS in patients with low-score tumours and quality of life. Recruitment of 4500 patients over 5 years will permit demonstration of 3% non-inferiority of test-directed treatment, assuming 5-year IDFS of 85% with standard management. An integrated qualitative recruitment study addresses challenges to consent and recruitment, building on experience from the feasibility study which found that a multidisciplinary approach is important for recruitment success. Results: The OPTIMA main trial opened in January 2017. Overall recruitment as of 1 July 2019 was 1123 (1100 from UK, 13 from Norway); 91% had axillary node macro-metastases. Median time from consent to treatment allocation was 12 days (interquartile range 10-14 days). The withdrawal rate from trial treatment is 3%; 50% of these continue with follow up. Prosigna tests have been performed on 608 tumours for 549 participants; 59% were luminal A, 38% were luminal B and 3% non-luminal (6 patients with non-luminal tumours [1% overall] were ineligible on receptor retesting). Of the 53 (10%) participants with >1 tumour tested, 3 (6%) had discordant scores only, 7 (13%) had discordant subtypes only and 8 (15%) had both discordant scores and subtypes. Two thirds of the MPA-directed arm participants have been allocated to endocrine therapy only. The test failure rate is Conclusion: OPTIMA is one of two large scale prospective trials validating the use of test-guided chemotherapy decisions in node-positive early breast cancer. It is expected to have a global impact on breast cancer treatment. Funding: OPTIMA is funded by the UK NIHR HTA Programme (10/34/501). Views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the HTA Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health. Trial Inquiries: OPTIMA@warwick.ac.uk Citation Format: Robert C Stein, Andrea Marshall, Andreas Makris, Luke Hughes-Davies, Iain R MacPherson, Carmel Conefrey, Leila Rooshenas, Sarah E Pinder, Abeer M Shaaban, Bjørn Naume, David A Cameron, Daniel W Rea, Helena M Earl, Christopher J Poole, Peter S Hall, Georgina Dotchin, Stuart A McIntosh, Victoria Harmer, Adrienne Morgan, Bethany Shinkins, Nigel Stallard, Christopher McCabe, Jenny L Donovan, John MS Bartlett, Janet A Dunn. OPTIMA: A prospective randomized trial to validate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of gene expression test-directed chemotherapy decisions in mostly node-positive early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT3-17-01.

Background:Multi-parameter tumour gene expression assays (MPAs) are widely used to estimate individual patient residual risk and to guide chemotherapy use in hormone-sensitive, HER2-negative early breast cancer. The TAILORx trial supports MPA use in a node-negative population. Evidence for MPA use in node-positive breast cancer is limited. OPTIMA (Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multi-parameter Analysis) (ISRCTN42400492) aims to validate MPAs as predictors of chemotherapy sensitivity in a largely node-positive breast cancer population where prospective RCT (Randomised Controlled Trial) evidence is lacking. Methods: OPTIMA is a partially blinded multi-center RCT with an adaptive two-stage design. The main eligibility criteria are women and men age 40 or older with resected ER-positive, HER2-negative invasive breast cancer and up to 9 involved axillary lymph nodes. Randomisation is to standard management (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or to MPA-directed treatment using the Prosigna (PAM50) test. Those with a Prosigna tumour score (ROR_PT) >60 receive standard management whilst those with a low score (≤60) are treated with endocrine therapy alone. Endocrine therapy for pre-menopausal women includes ovarian suppression. The co-primary outcomes are (1) Invasive Disease Free Survival (IDFS) and (2) cost-effectiveness of test-directed treatment. Secondary outcomes include IDFS in patients with low-score tumours and quality of life. An integrated qualitative recruitment study addresses challenges to consent and recruitment and will build on experience from the feasibility study that a multidisciplinary approach at sites is important for recruitment success. Tumour blocks will be banked to allow evaluation of additional MPA technologies. Recruitment of 4500 patients over 5 years will permit demonstration of 3% non-inferiority of test-directed treatment, assuming 5-year IDFS of 85% with standard management, equivalent to a HR of 1.22. Inclusion of patients from the feasibility study will increase the power to test for non-inferiority. Results: The OPTIMA main trial opened in January 2017. Overall recruitment (including the feasibility study) will reach 1000 in August 2018. Recruitment in Norway will commence in July 2018. Characteristics of the OPTIMA main participants recruited to 31st May 2018 are shown in the table. Main study patient characteristicsCharacteristic %Median age in years (range)57 (40-80) Menopause statusPre34 Post66 Male1Tumour size=30mm42Node statuspN04 pN1mi(sn)7 pN1(sn)20 pN155 pN214Historic grade16 258 336 Conclusion: OPTIMA is one of two large scale prospective trials validating the use of test-guided chemotherapy decisions in node-positive early breast cancer. It is expected to have a global impact on breast cancer treatment. Experience from the preliminary study and close engagement with centres will aid trial success. Funding: OPTIMA is funded by the UK NIHR HTA Programme (10/34/501). Views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the HTA Programme, NIHR, NHS or the DoH. Citation Format: Stein RC, Hughes-Davies L, Makris A, Macpherson IR, Conefrey C, Rooshenas L, Pinder SE, Thomas J, Hall PS, Cameron DA, Earl HM, Naume B, Poole CJ, Rea DW, MacIntosh SA, Harmer V, Morgan A, Hulme C, McCabe C, Stallard N, Higgins H, Donovan JL, Bartlett JM, Marshall A, Dunn JA. OPTIMA: A prospective randomized trial to validate the clinical utility and cost-effectiveness of gene expression test-directed chemotherapy decisions in high clinical risk early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-05-02.

Introduction: Approximately 40% of the 55,000 women diagnosed with breast cancer each year in the UK undergo mastectomy because they are considered unsuitable for standard breast conserving surgery (BCS) due to tumour size or multiple tumour foci. Mastectomy can significantly impact women’s quality of life and only 1 in 4 women currently undergo immediate breast reconstruction (IBR). Level 2 oncoplastic breast conserving surgery (OPBCS) that combine removing the cancer with a range of plastic surgical volume replacement (e.g. local perforator flaps) and volume displacement techniques (e.g. therapeutic mammaplasty) that can extend the role of BCS and may allow some women not suitable for standard BCS to avoid mastectomy. High-quality research to determine whether OPBCS offers a safe and effective alternative to mastectomy +/- IBR is currently lacking. Preliminary work is needed to ensure a future large-scale study is feasible, well-designed and addresses questions important to patients and the NHS. Methods and analysis: Mixed methods will be used to inform feasibility and design of a future large-scale study comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OPBCS and mastectomy +/- IBR. It will have four parts: 1. A national practice questionnaire to determine current practice and provision of oncoplastic breast and reconstructive surgery in the UK 2. A pilot multicentre prospective cohort study to explore the proportion of patients choosing OPBCS vs. mastectomy; the proportion in whom OPBCS is successful and clinical and patient-reported outcomes of different techniques at 3 and 12-months post-surgery. 3. A qualitative interview study to explore patients’ attitudes to different procedures; rationale for decision-making and perceptions of outcomes. 4. Design of the future study All centres offering OPBCS and mastectomy in the UK will be invited to participate. Recruitment is planned to commence winter 2020 and continue for 12 months. Ethics and dissemination: The study has ethical approval from the Wales REC 6 National Research Ethics Service (REC Ref 20/WA/0225). Results will be presented at national and international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. We will work with patients to develop lay summaries and share these through patient groups and breast cancer charities. Trial registration number: ISRCTN18238549 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY • This mixed methods study will determine whether it is possible to undertake a large prospective cohort study directly comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of oncoplastic breast conserving surgery and mastectomy with or without breast reconstruction in patients considered suitable for both procedures. • It will determine whether the BREAST-Q core breast cancer modules are an appropriate and meaningful patient-reported outcome measure for use in a future comparative study. • Qualitative interviews will explore patients’ attitudes to different procedures, rationale for decision making and perception of outcomes providing the opportunity to improve informed consent in this group. • Suitability for OPBCS will be assessed by individual surgeons or teams. It is multifactorial with subjective elements and is likely to vary between individuals and centres. • Patients will only be followed up for 12 months and the effects of radiotherapy and any revisional surgery are likely to occur at a later time point.

Background: Multi-parameter gene expression assays (MPAs) are widely used to estimate individual patient residual risk in hormone-sensitive HER2-negative node-negative early breast cancer, allowing patients with low risk to safely avoid chemotherapy. Evidence for MPA use in node-positive breast cancer is limited. OPTIMA (Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multi-parameter Analysis) aims to validate MPA's as predictors of chemotherapy sensitivity in a largely node-positive breast cancer population. Methods: OPTIMA is a partially blinded multi-center, phase 3 randomized controlled trial with an adaptive two-stage design. The main eligibility criteria are women or men aged 40 or older with resected ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer and up to 9 involved axillary lymph nodes. Randomization is to standard management (chemotherapy and endocrine therapy) or to MPA-directed treatment. Those with a “high risk” tumor MPA score receive standard management whilst those at “low risk” are treated with endocrine therapy alone. The preliminary phase (OPTIMA prelim) evaluated the performance of several MPAs to select a test to be used in the main efficacy trial based on economic analysis, and assessed the feasibility and acceptability of a large UK trial. OPTIMA prelim used Oncotype DX as the primary discriminator; the main trial will use Prosigna (PAM50) with Prosigna Score ≤60 defined as “low-risk”. The co-primary outcomes are (1) Invasive Disease Free Survival (IDFS) and (2) cost-effectiveness of test-directed therapy. Secondary outcomes include IDFS in “low-risk” patients, quality of life and additional survival measures. An integrated qualitative recruitment study will identify and address challenges to recruitment and informed consent. Tumor blocks from all consenting participants will be banked allowing the performance of alternative MPA technologies to be evaluated. Recruitment of 4500 patients will permit demonstration of 3% non-inferiority of test-directed treatment, with 5% significance and 85% power, assuming 3 years follow-up and a control arm 5-year IDFS of at least 85%. The addition of patients from OPTIMA prelim will allow non-inferiority to be assessed with 2.5% significance. Results: OPTIMA-prelim recruited 412 patients in 23 months from 35 sites with a 47% acceptance rate. The main study opened in January 2017. Early progress indicates that the recruitment target is achievable in the intended 46-month timescale through the participation of >100 sites Conclusion: OPTIMA, as one of two large scale prospective trials validating the use of test-guided chemotherapy decisions in node-positive early breast cancer, is expected to have a global impact on breast cancer treatment. Experience from OPTIMA prelim showed that patient advocate support and close engagement with sites will aid trial success. Funding: The project is funded in the UK by the NIHR HTA Programme (10/34/501). Views expressed are those of the authors and not those of the HTA Programme, NIHR, NHS or the DoH. Citation Format: Stein RC, Makris A, Hughes-Davies L, Macpherson IR, Hall PS, Cameron DA, Earl HM, Pinder SE, Poole CJ, Rea DW, McIntosh S, Harmer V, Morgan A, Rooshenas L, Conefrey C, Donovan JL, Hulme C, McCabe C, Stallard N, Campbell A, Higgins H, Bartlett JMS, Marshall A, Dunn JA. OPTIMA: A prospective randomized trial to validate the predictive utility and cost-effectiveness of gene expression test-directed chemotherapy decisions in early breast cancer [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2017 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2017 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2018;78(4 Suppl):Abstract nr OT1-06-01.

Objective To evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements “QRI actions” to address these as recruitment proceeds. Study Design and Setting A mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators. Results Five UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action. Conclusion There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.

Objectives To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. Study Design and Setting Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. Results One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. Conclusions The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation., Highlights • Practices commonly used to describe randomisation in RCT recruitment could confuse patients. • Patients found it difficult to comprehend gambling-related metaphors of randomisation. • Computer-agency descriptions led to patients believing they would receive the best treatment.

Background The way recruiters’ present information to patients can influence whether or not the patient agrees to participate in an RCT. We know that many clinicians find it difficult to communicate about trials, including the concept and justification of randomisation. Current clinical guidance states that patients must be informed about randomisation but there is little advice about how to do this in practice. The aim of this paper is to show how randomisation was presented by recruiters, and provide suggestions about key aspects that can inhibit/facilitate informed decision making.