Search

Background: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. Methods: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7–14 days after the Cytosponge test. Study cohort: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). Statistical analysis: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. Results: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5–2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03–4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71–7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14–5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. Conclusion: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a trend to increasing use of routinely collected health data to ascertain outcome measures in trials. We report on the completeness and accuracy of national ovarian cancer and death registration in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS).Methods: Of the 202,638 participants, 202,632 were successfully linked and followed through national cancer and death registries of Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Women with registrations of any of 19 pre-defined ICD-10 codes suggestive of tubo-ovarian cancer or notification of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer from hospital episode statistics or trial sites were identified. Copies of hospital and primary care notes were retrieved and reviewed by an independent outcomes review committee. National registration of site and cause of death as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer (C56/C57/C48) obtained up to 3 months after trial censorship was compared to that assigned by outcomes review (reference standard).Results: Outcome review was undertaken in 3110 women on whom notification was received between 2001 and 2014. Ovarian cancer was confirmed in 1324 of whom 1125 had a relevant cancer registration. Sensitivity and specificity of ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancer registration were 85.0% (1125/1324; 95% CI 83.7-86.2%) and 94.0% (1679/1786; 95% CI 93.2-94.8%), respectively. Of 2041 death registrations reviewed, 681 were confirmed to have a tubo-ovarian cancer of whom 605 had relevant death registration. Sensitivity and specificity were 88.8% (605/681; 95% CI 86.4-91.2%) and 96.7% (1482/1533, 95% CI 95.8-97.6%), respectively. When multiple electronic health record sources were considered, sensitivity for cancer site increased to 91.1% (1206/1324, 95% CI 89.4-92.5%) and for cause of death 94.0% (640/681, 95% CI 91.9-95.5%). Of 1232 with cancer registration, 8.7% (107/1232) were wrongly designated as ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers by the registry and 4.0% (47/1172) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancers were mis-registered. In 656 with death registrations, 7.8% (51/656) were wrongly assigned as due to ovarian/tubal/peritoneal cancers while 6.2% (40/645) of confirmed tubo-ovarian cancer deaths were mis-registered.Conclusion: Follow-up of trial participants for tubo-ovarian cancer using national registry data will result in incomplete ascertainment, particularly of the site due in part to the latency of registration. This can be reduced by using other routinely collected data such as hospital episode statistics. Central adjudication by experts though resource intensive adds value by improving the accuracy of diagnoses.Trial Registration: ISRCTN: ISRCTN22488978 . Registered on 6 April 2000. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on use of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in prostate cancer. Topics discussed include an information that addition of ADT to radiotherapy improves disease-free and overall survival; information on STAMPEDE which is a platform protocol using multi-arm, multi-stage trial designs to investigate novel treatment approaches in locally advanced or metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; and information on Transdermal oestradiol (E2) and testosterone metabolism.

Background: Evidence is mounting that area-level socioeconomic indicators are important tools for predicting health outcomes. However, few studies have examined these alongside individual-level education. This nested cohort study within the control arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) assesses the association of mutually adjusted individual (education) and area-level (Index of Multiple Deprivation-IMD 2007) socioeconomic status indicators and all-cause female mortality. Methods: Participants resident in England who had completed both baseline (Wave 1) and follow up (Wave 2) questionnaires were included. Follow-up was through the Health and Social Care Information Centre with deaths censored on 31st December 2012. IMD, education and a range of covariates were explored. Cox regression models adjusted for all covariates were used. Sensitivity analysis using imputation was performed (1) including those with missing data and (2) on the entire cohort who had completed the baseline questionnaire. Results: Of the 54,539 women resident in England who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 questionnaires, 4,510 had missing data. The remaining 50,029 women were included in the primary analysis. Area-level IMD was positively associated with all-cause mortality for the most deprived group compared to the least deprived (HR=1.42, CI=1.14-1.78) after adjusting for all potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with stronger associations in the entire cohort (HR=1.90, CI=1.68-2.16). The less educated an individual, the higher the mortality risk (test for trend p=<0.001). However, the crude effect on mortality of having no formal education compared to college/university education disappeared when adjusted for IMD rank (HR=1.08, CI=0.93-1.26). Conclusion: Women living in more deprived areas continue to have higher mortality even in this less deprived cohort and after adjustment for a range of potential confounders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The linear mixed-effects model (Verbeke and Molenberghs, 2000) has become a standard tool for the analysis of continuous hierarchical data such as, for example, repeated measures or data from meta-analyses. However, in certain situations the model does pose insurmountable computational problems. Precisely this has been the experience of Buyse et al. (2000a) who proposed an estimation- and prediction-based approach for evaluating surrogate endpoints. Their approach requires fitting linear mixed models to data from several clinical trials. In doing so, these authors built on the earlier, single-trial based, work by Prentice (1989), Freedman et al. (1992), and Buyse and Molenberghs (1998). While Buyse et al. (2000a) claim their approach has a number of advantages over the classical single-trial methods, a solution needs to be found for the computational complexity of the corresponding linear mixed model. In this paper, we propose and study a number of possible simplifications. This is done by means of a simulation study and by applying the various strategies to data from three clinical studies: Pharmacological Therapy for Macular Degeneration Study Group (1977), Ovarian Cancer Meta-analysis Project (1991) and Corfu-A Study Group (1995). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tubo-ovarian cancer (OC) continues to be the most lethal of all gynaecological cancers. Over half of women are diagnosed with late stage (III/IV) disease, which has a five-year survival rate of 11%. Socioeconomic status (SES) has been shown to have an impact on outcomes of several cancer types, including OC. This study aims to investigate any potential association between SES and stage at diagnosis of OC. Methods: Women from the non-screening arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) with a confirmed diagnosis of OC prior to 01 January 2015 and an English index of multiple deprivation (IMD) score were eligible for the study. The association between IMD and OC stage (FIGO) was analysed using an ordinal logistic regression model adjusted for age at diagnosis and BMI. Results: Four-hundred and fifty seven women were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis. The odds of being diagnosed with the higher dichotomization of stage (I vs. II/III/IV; I/II vs. III/IV; I/II/III vs. IV) was 1.29 (p = 0.017; 95% CI: 1.048–1.592) per unit SD (standard deviation) increase in IMD. This translates to a 29% increase in odds of being diagnosed at the higher stage per each unit SD increase in IMD. Conclusion: Increased deprivation is consistently associated with a higher probability of being diagnosed with later stage OC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Evidence is mounting that area-level socioeconomic indicators are important tools for predicting health outcomes. However, few studies have examined these alongside individual-level education. This nested cohort study within the control arm of the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS) assesses the association of mutually adjusted individual (education) and area-level (Index of Multiple Deprivation-IMD 2007) socioeconomic status indicators and all-cause female mortality.Methods: Participants resident in England who had completed both baseline (Wave 1) and follow up (Wave 2) questionnaires were included. Follow-up was through the Health and Social Care Information Centre with deaths censored on 31st December 2012. IMD, education and a range of covariates were explored. Cox regression models adjusted for all covariates were used. Sensitivity analysis using imputation was performed (1) including those with missing data and (2) on the entire cohort who had completed the baseline questionnaire.Results: Of the 54,539 women resident in England who completed both Wave 1 and Wave 2 questionnaires, 4,510 had missing data. The remaining 50,029 women were included in the primary analysis. Area-level IMD was positively associated with all-cause mortality for the most deprived group compared to the least deprived (HR=1.42, CI=1.14-1.78) after adjusting for all potential confounders. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results with stronger associations in the entire cohort (HR=1.90, CI=1.68-2.16). The less educated an individual, the higher the mortality risk (test for trend p=<0.001). However, the crude effect on mortality of having no formal education compared to college/university education disappeared when adjusted for IMD rank (HR=1.08, CI=0.93-1.26).Conclusion: Women living in more deprived areas continue to have higher mortality even in this less deprived cohort and after adjustment for a range of potential confounders.Trial Registration: This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN22488978. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]