Development of a framework to improve the process of recruitment to randomised controlled trials (RCTs):the SEAR (Screened, Eligible, Approached, Randomised) framework

BackgroundResearch has shown that recruitment to trials is a process that stretches from identifying potentially eligible patients, through eligibility assessment, to obtaining informed consent. The length and complexity of this pathway means that many patients do not have the opportunity to consider participation. This article presents the development of a simple framework to document, understand and improve the process of trial recruitment. MethodsEight RCTs integrated a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) into the main trial, feasibility or pilot study. Part of the QRI required mapping the patient recruitment pathway using trial-specific screening and recruitment logs. A content analysis compared the logs to identify aspects of the recruitment pathway and process that were useful in monitoring and improving recruitment. Findings were synthesised to develop an optimised simple framework that can be used in a wide range of RCTs. ResultsThe eight trials recorded basic information about patients screened for trial participation and randomisation outcome. Three trials systematically recorded reasons why an individual was not enrolled in the trial, and further details why they were not eligible or approached, or declined randomisation. A framework to facilitate clearer recording of the recruitment process and reasons for non-participation was developed: SEAR andndash; Screening, to identify potentially eligible trial participants; Eligibility, assessed against the trial protocol inclusion/exclusion criteria; Approach, the provision of oral and written information and invitation to participate in the trial, and Randomised or not, with the outcome of randomisation or treatment received. ConclusionsThe SEAR framework encourages the collection of information to identify recruitment obstacles and facilitate improvements to the recruitment process. SEAR can be adapted to monitor recruitment to most RCTs, but is likely to add most value in trials where recruitment problems are anticipated or evident. Further work to test it more widely is recommended.</p

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone with or without enzalutamide for patients with metastatic prostate cancer starting androgen deprivation therapy: final results from two randomised phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol

Background: Abiraterone acetate plus prednisolone (herein referred to as abiraterone) or enzalutamide added at the start of androgen deprivation therapy improves outcomes for patients with metastatic prostate cancer. Here, we aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes and test whether combining enzalutamide with abiraterone and androgen deprivation therapy improves survival. Methods: We analysed two open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trials of the STAMPEDE platform protocol, with no overlapping controls, conducted at 117 sites in the UK and Switzerland. Eligible patients (no age restriction) had metastatic, histologically-confirmed prostate adenocarcinoma; a WHO performance status of 0–2; and adequate haematological, renal, and liver function. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computerised algorithm and a minimisation technique to either standard of care (androgen deprivation therapy; docetaxel 75 mg/m2 intravenously for six cycles with prednisolone 10 mg orally once per day allowed from Dec 17, 2015) or standard of care plus abiraterone acetate 1000 mg and prednisolone 5 mg (in the abiraterone trial) orally or abiraterone acetate and prednisolone plus enzalutamide 160 mg orally once a day (in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial). Patients were stratified by centre, age, WHO performance status, type of androgen deprivation therapy, use of aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, pelvic nodal status, planned radiotherapy, and planned docetaxel use. The primary outcome was overall survival assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all patients who started treatment. A fixed-effects meta-analysis of individual patient data was used to compare differences in survival between the two trials. STAMPEDE is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ISRCTN (ISRCTN78818544). Findings: Between Nov 15, 2011, and Jan 17, 2014, 1003 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=502) or standard of care plus abiraterone (n=501) in the abiraterone trial. Between July 29, 2014, and March 31, 2016, 916 patients were randomly assigned to standard of care (n=454) or standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide (n=462) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. Median follow-up was 96 months (IQR 86–107) in the abiraterone trial and 72 months (61–74) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial. In the abiraterone trial, median overall survival was 76·6 months (95% CI 67·8–86·9) in the abiraterone group versus 45·7 months (41·6–52·0) in the standard of care group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·62 [95% CI 0·53–0·73]; p&lt;0·0001). In the abiraterone and enzalutamide trial, median overall survival was 73·1 months (61·9–81·3) in the abiraterone and enzalutamide group versus 51·8 months (45·3–59·0) in the standard of care group (HR 0·65 [0·55–0·77]; p&lt;0·0001). We found no difference in the treatment effect between these two trials (interaction HR 1·05 [0·83–1·32]; pinteraction=0·71) or between-trial heterogeneity (I2 p=0·70). In the first 5 years of treatment, grade 3–5 toxic effects were higher when abiraterone was added to standard of care (271 [54%] of 498 vs 192 [38%] of 502 with standard of care) and the highest toxic effects were seen when abiraterone and enzalutamide were added to standard of care (302 [68%] of 445 vs 204 [45%] of 454 with standard of care). Cardiac causes were the most common cause of death due to adverse events (five [1%] with standard of care plus abiraterone and enzalutamide [two attributed to treatment] and one (&lt;1%) with standard of care in the abiraterone trial). Interpretation: Enzalutamide and abiraterone should not be combined for patients with prostate cancer starting long-term androgen deprivation therapy. Clinically important improvements in survival from addition of abiraterone to androgen deprivation therapy are maintained for longer than 7 years. Funding: Cancer Research UK, UK Medical Research Council, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research, Janssen, and Astellas

Evaluating atezolizumab in patients with urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (AURORA): study protocol for a single arm, open-label, multicentre, phase II clinical trial

Background: bladder and urinary tract cancers account for approximately 21,000 new diagnoses and 5,000 deaths annually in the UK. Approximately 90% are transitional cell carcinomas where advanced disease is treated with platinum based chemotherapy and PD-1/PD-L1 directed immunotherapy. Urinary tract squamous cell carcinoma (UTSCC) accounts for about 5% of urinary tract cancers overall making this a rare disease. We have yet to establish definitive systemic treatment options for advanced UTSCC. Preliminary translational data, from UTSCC patient tumour samples, indicate high PD-L1 expression and tumour infiltrating lymphocytes in a proportion of cases. Both of these features are associated with differential gene expression consistent with a tumour/immune microenvironment predicted to be susceptible to immune checkpoint directed immunotherapy which we will evaluate in the AURORA trial.Methods: AURORA is a single arm, open-label, multicentre,UK phase II clinical trial. 33 patients will be recruited from UK secondary care sites. Patients with UTSCC, suitable for treatment with palliative intent, will receive atezolizumab PD-L1 directed immunotherapy (IV infusion, 1680 mg, every 28 days) for one year if tolerated. Response assessment, by cross sectional imaging will occur every 12 weeks. AURORA uses a Simon's 2-stage optimal design with best overall objective response rate (ORR, by RECIST v1.1) at a minimum of 12 weeks from commencing treatment as the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints will include overall survival, progression-free survival, duration of response, magnitude of response using waterfall plots of target lesion measurements, quality of life using the EORTC QLQ-C30 tool, safety and tolerability (CTCAE v5) and evaluation of potential biomarkers of treatment response including PD-L1 expression. Archival tumour samples and blood samples will be collected for translational analyses.Discussion: if this trial shows atezolizumab to be safe and effective it may lead to a future late phase randomised controlled trial in UTSCC. Ultimately, we hope to provide a new option for treatment for such patients.Trial registrations: EudraCT Number: 2021-001995-32 (issued 8th September 2021); ISRCTN83474167 (registered 11 May 2022); NCT05038657 (issued 9th September 2021).</p

(Abstract only) 10-Year efficacy and co-morbidity outcomes of a phase III randomised trial of conventional vs. hypofractionated high dose intensity modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (CHHiP; CRUK/06/016)

304 Background: Five-year results from the CHHiP trial indicated that moderate hypofractionation of 60 Gray (Gy)/20 fractions (f) was non-inferior to 74Gy/37f (Lancet Oncology, 2016). Reporting of long-term efficacy and side effects is essential in a patient population that remain at risk of recurrence years after treatment. Here we report specific co-morbidity data collected at 10 years and an update of efficacy. Methods: Between October 2002 and June 2011, 3216 men with node negative T1b-T3a localised prostate cancer with risk of seminal vesical involvement ≤30% were randomised (1:1:1 ratio) to 74Gy/37f (control), 60Gy/20f or 57Gy/19f. Patients received 3-6 months of androgen deprivation prior to radiotherapy. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical failure (Phoenix consensus guidelines) or clinical failure (BCF). The non-inferiority design specified a critical hazard ratio (HR) of 1.208 for each hypofractionated schedule compared to control. Data on specific radiotherapy related co-morbidities were collected at 10-year follow-up and are presented as frequency and percentages. Analysis was by intention-to-treat; HRs quoted are unadjusted. Results: With a median follow up of 12.1 years, 10-year BCF-free rates (95% CI) were 74Gy: 76.0% (73.1%, 78.6%); 60Gy: 79.8% (77.1%, 82.3%) and 57Gy: 73.4% (70.5%, 76.1%). For 60Gy/20f, non-inferiority was confirmed: HR60=0.84 (90% CI 0.72, 0.97) with borderline significance for superiority (HR=0.84 (95% CI 0.70, 1.00). As in the primary analysis, for 57Gy/19f, non-inferiority could not be declared: HR57=1.13 (90% CI 0.98, 1.30). 10-year overall survival (95% CI) was 78.5% (75.9%, 81.0%), 82.9% (80.4%, 85.0%) and 79.9% (77.3%, 82.2%) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups. Bone fractures were reported in 2% (15/700), 2% (19/771) and 3% (22/719) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively at 10 years. The most common intervention reported was a sigmoidoscopy with 12% (79/681), 8% (60/739) and 9% (65/702) in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy groups respectively. Of those patients who underwent a sigmoidoscopy it was due to symptoms for 81% (63/78) 81% (48/59) and 85% (55/65) of patients in the 74Gy, 60Gy and 57Gy group respectively. Frequencies of all other pre-specified co-morbidities or related interventions (ureteric obstruction, bowel strictures, trans-urethral resection of prostate, urethrotomy, urethral dilatation or long term catheterisation or treatment of proctopathy with steroid, sucralfate, formalin, laser coagulation or rectal diversion) were &lt;1% in all groups. Conclusions: With a median follow-up of 12 years, oncological outcomes following 60Gy/20f continue to be non-inferior to those with 74Gy/37f. Late co-morbidities were very low across all treatment groups. These data support the long-term safety of moderate hypofractionation. Clinical trial information: 97182923

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of SPARE - a randomised feasibility study of selective bladder preservation versus radical cystectomy

To test the feasibility of a randomised trial in muscle-invasive bladder cancer (MIBC) and compare outcomes in patients who receive neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by radical cystectomy (RC) or selective bladder preservation (SBP), where definitive treatment [RC or radiotherapy (RT)] is determined by response to chemotherapy.SPARE is a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing RC and SBP in patients with MIBC staged T2-3 N0 M0, fit for both treatment strategies and receiving three cycles of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomised between RC and SBP before a cystoscopy after cycle three of neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Patients with ≤T1 residual tumour received a fourth cycle of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in both groups, followed by radical RT in the SBP group and RC in in the RC group; non-responders in both groups proceeded immediately to RC following cycle three. Feasibility study primary endpoints were accrual rate and compliance with assigned treatment strategy. The phase III trial was designed to demonstrate non-inferiority of SBP in terms of overall survival (OS) in patients whose tumours responded to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Secondary endpoints included patient-reported quality of life, clinician assessed toxicity, loco-regional recurrence-free survival, and rate of salvage RC after SBP.Trial recruitment was challenging and below the predefined target with 45 patients recruited in 30 months (25 RC; 20 SBP). Non-compliance with assigned treatment strategy was frequent, six of the 25 patients (24%) randomised to RC received RT. Long-term bladder preservation rate was 11/15 (73%) in those who received RT per protocol. OS survival was not significantly different between groups.Randomising patients with MIBC between RC and SBP based on response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy was not feasible in the UK health system. Strong clinician and patient preferences for treatments impacted willingness to undergo randomisation and acceptance of treatment allocation. Due to the few participants, firm conclusions about disease and toxicity outcomes cannot be drawn

Clinicians’ individual perceptions of equipoise, based on interview accounts.

<p>Clinicians’ individual perceptions of equipoise, based on interview accounts.</p

Clinicians’ descriptions of the concept of equipoise to patients during RCT recruitment appointments.

<p>Clinicians’ descriptions of the concept of equipoise to patients during RCT recruitment appointments.</p