Advance telephone calls ahead of reminder questionnaires increase response rate in non-responders compared to questionnaire reminders only : The RECORD phone trial

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Maximising the impact of qualitative research in feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials: guidance for researchers

Feasibility studies are increasingly undertaken in preparation for randomised controlled trials in order to explore uncertainties and enable trialists to optimise the intervention or the conduct of the trial. Qualitative research can be used to examine and address key uncertainties prior to a full trial. We present guidance that researchers, research funders and reviewers may wish to consider when assessing or undertaking qualitative research within feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials. The guidance consists of 16 items within five domains: research questions, data collection, analysis, teamwork and reporting. Appropriate and well conducted qualitative research can make an important contribution to feasibility studies for randomised controlled trials. This guidance may help researchers to consider the full range of contributions that qualitative research can make in relation to their particular trial. The guidance may also help researchers and others to reflect on the utility of such qualitative research in practice, so that trial teams can decide when and how best to use these approaches in future studies

Quantum dynamics of crystals of molecular nanomagnets inside a resonant cavity

It is shown that crystals of molecular nanomagnets exhibit enhanced magnetic relaxation when placed inside a resonant cavity. Strong dependence of the magnetization curve on the geometry of the cavity has been observed, providing evidence of the coherent microwave radiation by the crystals. A similar dependence has been found for a crystal placed between Fabry-Perot superconducting mirrors. These observations open the possibility of building a nanomagnetic microwave laser pumped by the magnetic field

Iso-singlet Down Quark Mixing And CP Violation Experiments

We confront the new physics models with extra iso-singlet down quarks in the new CP violation experimental era with $\sin{(2\beta)}$ and $\epsilon'/\epsilon$ measurements, $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$ events, and $x_s$ limits. The closeness of the new experimental results to the standard model theory requires us to include full SM amplitudes in the analysis. In models allowing mixing to a new isosinglet down quark, as in E$_6$, flavor changing neutral currents are induced that allow a $Z^0$ mediated contribution to $B-\bar B$ mixing and which bring in new phases. In $(\rho,\eta)$, $(x_s,\sin{(\gamma)})$, and $(x_s, \sin{(2\phi_s)})$ plots we still find much larger regions in the four down quark model than in the SM, reaching down to $\eta \approx 0$, $0 \leq \sin{(\gamma)} \leq 1$, $-.75 \leq \sin{(2\alpha)} \leq 0.15$, and $\sin{(2\phi_s)}$ down to zero, all at 1$\sigma$. We elucidate the nature of the cancellation in an order $\lambda^5$ four down quark mixing matrix element which satisfies the experiments and reduces the number of independent angles and phases. We also evaluate tests of unitarity for the $3\times3$ CKM submatrix.Comment: 14 pages, 16 figures, REVTeX

Factors Influencing the Participation of Older People in Clinical Trials : Data Analysis from the MAVIS Trial

Peer reviewedPostprin

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW):a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

Background: Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods: We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings: Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation: Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. </p

Adjuvant chemotherapy in upper tract urothelial carcinoma (the POUT trial): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

Background: Urothelial carcinomas of the upper urinary tract (UTUCs) are rare, with poorer stage-for-stage prognosis than urothelial carcinomas of the urinary bladder. No international consensus exists on the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with UTUCs after nephroureterectomy with curative intent. The POUT (Peri-Operative chemotherapy versus sUrveillance in upper Tract urothelial cancer) trial aimed to assess the efficacy of systemic platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with UTUCs. Methods: We did a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 71 hospitals in the UK. We recruited patients with UTUC after nephroureterectomy staged as either pT2–T4 pN0–N3 M0 or pTany N1–3 M0. We randomly allocated participants centrally (1:1) to either surveillance or four 21-day cycles of chemotherapy, using a minimisation algorithm with a random element. Chemotherapy was either cisplatin (70 mg/m²) or carboplatin (area under the curve [AUC]4·5/AUC5, for glomerular filtration rate <50 mL/min only) administered intravenously on day 1 and gemcitabine (1000 mg/m²) administered intravenously on days 1 and 8; chemotherapy was initiated within 90 days of surgery. Follow-up included standard cystoscopic, radiological, and clinical assessments. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival analysed by intention to treat with a Peto-Haybittle stopping rule for (in)efficacy. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01993979. A preplanned interim analysis met the efficacy criterion for early closure after recruitment of 261 participants. Findings: Between June 19, 2012, and Nov 8, 2017, we enrolled 261 participants from 57 of 71 open study sites. 132 patients were assigned chemotherapy and 129 surveillance. One participant allocated chemotherapy withdrew consent for data use after randomisation and was excluded from analyses. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly improved disease-free survival (hazard ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·30–0·68; p=0·0001) at a median follow-up of 30·3 months (IQR 18·0–47·5). 3-year event-free estimates were 71% (95% CI 61–78) and 46% (36–56) for chemotherapy and surveillance, respectively. 55 (44%) of 126 participants who started chemotherapy had acute grade 3 or worse treatment-emergent adverse events, which accorded with frequently reported events for the chemotherapy regimen. Five (4%) of 129 patients managed by surveillance had acute grade 3 or worse emergent adverse events. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation: Gemcitabine–platinum combination chemotherapy initiated within 90 days after nephroureterectomy significantly improved disease-free survival in patients with locally advanced UTUC. Adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy should be considered a new standard of care after nephroureterectomy for this patient population. Funding: Cancer Research UK

Establishing nurse-led active surveillance for men with localised prostate cancer: development and formative evaluation of a model of care in the ProtecT trial.

Objectives To develop a nurse-led, urologist-supported model of care for men managed by active surveillance or active monitoring (AS/AM) for localised prostate cancer and provide a formative evaluation of its acceptability to patients, clinicians and nurses. Nurse-led care, comprising an explicit nurse-led protocol with support from urologists, was developed as part of the AM arm of the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial. Design Interviews and questionnaire surveys of clinicians, nurses and patients assessed acceptability. Setting Nurse-led clinics were established in 9 centres in the ProtecT trial and compared with 3 non-ProtecT urology centres elsewhere in UK. Participants Within ProtecT, 22 men receiving AM nurse-led care were interviewed about experiences of care; 11 urologists and 23 research nurses delivering ProtecT trial care completed a questionnaire about its acceptability; 20 men managed in urology clinics elsewhere in the UK were interviewed about models of AS/AM care; 12 urologists and three specialist nurses working in these clinics were also interviewed about management of AS/AM. Results Nurse-led care was commended by ProtecT trial participants, who valued the flexibility, accessibility and continuity of the service and felt confident about the quality of care. ProtecT consultant urologists and nurses also rated it highly, identifying continuity of care and resource savings as key attributes. Clinicians and patients outside the ProtecT trial believed that nurse-led care could relieve pressure on urology clinics without compromising patient care. Conclusions The ProtecT AM nurse-led model of care was acceptable to men with localised prostate cancer and clinical specialists in urology. The protocol is available for implementation; we aim to evaluate its impact on routine clinical practice