Search

Background: Melanoma incidence has quadrupled since 1970 and melanoma is now the second most common cancer in individuals under 50. Targeted immunotherapies for melanoma now potentially enable long-term remission even in advanced melanoma, but these melanoma survivors require ongoing surveillance, with implications for NHS resources and significant social and psychological consequences for patients. Total skin self-examination (TSSE) can detect recurrence earlier and improve clinical outcomes but is underperformed in the UK. To support survivors, the Achieving Self-directed Integrated Cancer Aftercare (ASICA) intervention was developed to prompt and improve TSSE performance, with subsequent reporting of concerns and submission of skin photos to a Dermatology Nurse Practitioner (DNP). ASICA was delivered as a randomized pilot trial.Methods: This paper reports on process evaluation. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. We explored which participants used ASICA, and how frequently, to report any skin concerns. We also determined how the interactions had worked in terms of quality of skin photographs submitted, clinical assessments made by the DNP, and the assessments and decisions made for each concern. Finally, we explored significant events occurring during the trial. Data on participants' demographics and the concerns they reported during the trial were tabulated and displayed using SPSS. A semi-structured interview was undertaken with the DNP to gain perspective on the range of concerns presented and how they were resolved.Results: Of 121 recruited melanoma patients receiving ASICA for 12 months, 69 participants submitted a total of 123 reports detailing 189 separate skin-related concerns and including 188 skin photographs. Where participants fully complied with follow-up by the DNP, concerns were usually resolved remotely, but 19 (10.1%) were seen at a secondary care clinic and 14 (7.4%) referred to their GP. 49 (25.9%) of concerns were not completely resolved due to partial non-compliance with DNP follow-up.Conclusion: Melanoma patients randomized to the ASICA intervention were able to report skin-related concerns that could be resolved remotely through interaction with a DNP. Feasibility issues highlighted by ASICA will support further development and optimization of this digital tool.Trial Registration: Clinical Trials.gov , NCT03328247 . Registered on 1 November 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The LiGHT trial (Laser-1st versus Drops-1st for Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension Trial) is a multicentre randomised controlled trial of two treatment pathways for patients who are newly diagnosed with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) and ocular hypertension (OHT). The main hypothesis for the trial is that lowering intraocular pressure (IOP) with selective laser trabeculoplasty (SLT) as the primary treatment ('Laser-1st') leads to a better health-related quality of life than for those started on IOP-lowering drops as their primary treatment ('Medicine-1st') and that this is associated with reduced costs and improved tolerability of treatment. This paper describes the statistical analysis plan for the study.Methods/design: The LiGHT trial is an unmasked, multi-centre randomised controlled trial. A total of 718 patients (359 per arm) are being randomised to two groups: medicine-first or laser-first treatment. Outcomes are recorded at baseline and at 6-month intervals up to 36 months. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life (HRQL) at 36 months measured using the EQ-5D-5L. The main secondary outcome is the Glaucoma Utility Index. We plan to analyse the patient outcome data according to the group to which the patient was originally assigned. Methods of statistical analysis are described, including the handling of missing data, the covariates used in the adjusted analyses and the planned sensitivity analyses.Trial Registration: The trial was registered with the ISRCTN register on 23/07/2012, number ISRCTN32038223 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Typically, subgroup analyses in clinical trials are conducted by comparing the intervention effect in each subgroup by means of an interaction test. However, trials are rarely, if ever, adequately powered for interaction tests, so clinically important interactions may go undetected. We discuss the application of Bayesian methods by using expert opinions alongside the trial data. We applied this methodology to the VeRDiCT trial investigating the effect of preoperative volume replacement therapy (VRT) versus no VRT (usual care) in diabetic patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Two subgroup effects were of clinical interest, a) preoperative renal failure and b) preoperative type of antidiabetic medication.Methods: Clinical experts were identified within the VeRDiCT trial centre in the UK. A questionnaire was designed to elicit opinions on the impact of VRT on the primary outcome of time from surgery until medically fit for hospital discharge, in the different subgroups. Prior beliefs of the subgroup effect of VRT were elicited face-to-face using two unconditional and one conditional questions per subgroup analysis. The robustness of results to the 'community of priors' was assessed. The community of priors was built using the expert priors for the mean average treatment effect, the interaction effect or both in a Bayesian Cox proportional hazards model implemented in the STAN software in R.Results: Expert opinions were obtained from 7 clinicians (6 cardiac surgeons and 1 cardiac anaesthetist). Participating experts believed VRT could reduce the length of recovery compared to usual care and the greatest benefit was expected in the subgroups with the more severe comorbidity. The Bayesian posterior estimates were more precise compared to the frequentist maximum likelihood estimate and were shifted toward the overall mean treatment effect.Conclusions: In the VeRDiCT trial, the Bayesian analysis did not provide evidence of a difference in treatment effect across subgroups. However, this approach increased the precision of the estimated subgroup effects and produced more stable treatment effect point estimates than the frequentist approach. Trial methodologists are encouraged to prospectively consider Bayesian subgroup analyses when low-powered interaction tests are planned.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN02159606 . Registered 29th October 2008. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcomes are vital in informing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and health-care interventions and policies from the patient's perspective. However, participant non-response may introduce bias and can affect the generalisability of the trial. This study evaluates two interventions aimed at increasing response rates to postal questionnaires within a large, UK-wide RCT: pre-notification via short messenger service (SMS) text prior to sending the initial mailing of trial questionnaires versus no pre-notification; for non-responders to the initial mailing of the questionnaires, an e-mail reminder (containing a hyperlink to complete the questionnaire online) versus a postal reminder.Methods: This study is a 2 × 2 partial factorial design RCT nested within an RCT of medical expulsive therapy for ureteric stone disease. Participants who supplied a mobile telephone number were randomly assigned to receive an SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery or no pre-notification. Those who supplied an e-mail address were randomly assigned to receive a questionnaire reminder by e-mail or post. Participants could be randomly assigned to the pre-notification comparison or the reminder comparison or both. The primary outcome measure was response rate at each questionnaire time point.Results: Four hundred eighteen participants were randomly assigned to the SMS pre-notification comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 41 years with a standard deviation (SD) of 11.1). The intervention had no effect on response rate at either questionnaire time point. In subgroup analyses, SMS pre-notification increased response rates in women but only at the first questionnaire time point. One hundred nineteen participants were randomly assigned to the reminder comparison (80% were male, and the mean age was 42 years with an SD of 12.1). There was no difference in response rate in those who received an e-mail reminder compared with those who received a postal reminder.Conclusions: SMS text pre-notification of questionnaire delivery and email delivery of questionnaire reminders did not improve response rates. There was some evidence to suggest that SMS text pre-notification may be effective in women, and further studies to investigate this may be warranted. E-mail reminders for participants to return their postal questionnaire could be advantageous given that response rates were similar following either type of reminder and the low cost of delivering an e-mail compared with a postal reminder. This is a substudy of the SUSPEND trial (ISCTRN69423238) (18 Nov. 2010). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present the preliminary toxicity data from the MRC COIN trial, a phase III randomised controlled trial of first-line therapy in advanced colorectal cancer, with particular reference to the addition of cetuximab to an oxaliplatin-fluoropyrimidine combination. A total of 804 patients were randomised between March 2005 and July 2006 from 78 centres throughout the United Kingdom. Patients were allocated to oxaliplatin plus fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy with or without the addition of weekly cetuximab. The choice of fluoropyrimidine (either 5-fluorouracil (5FU) or capecitabine) was decided by the treating physician and patient before randomisation. Toxicity data were collected from all patients. Two hundred and three patients received 5FU plus oxaliplatin (OxMdG, 25%), 333 oxaliplatin+capecitabine (Xelox, 41%), 102 received OxMdG+cetuximab (OxMdG+C, 13%) and 166 Xelox+cetuximab (21%). Percent grade 3/4 toxicities included diarrhoea 6, 15, 13 and 25%, nausea/vomiting 3, 7, 7 and 14% for OxMdG, Xelox, OxMdG+C and Xelox+C, respectively. Sixty-day all-cause mortality was 6, 5, 5 and 7%. Statistically significant differences were evident for patients receiving Xelox+cetuximab vs Xelox alone: diarrhoea relative risk (RR) 1.69 (1.17, 2.43, P=0.005) and nausea/vomiting RR 2.01 (1.16, 3.47, P=0.012). The excess toxicity observed in the oxaliplatin-, capecitabine-, cetuximab-treated patients led the trial management group to conclude that a capecitabine dose adjustment was required to maintain safety levels when using this regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]