Our Digital Legacy: an Archival Perspective

Our digital memories are threatened by archival hubris, technical misdirection, and simplistic application of rules to protect privacy rights. The obsession with the technical challenge of digital preservation has blinded much of the archival community to the challenges, created by the digital transition, to the other core principles of archival science - namely, appraisal (what to keep), sensitivity review (identifying material that cannot yet be disclosed for ethical or legal reasons) and access. The essay will draw on the considerations of appraisal and sensitivity review to project a vision of some aspects of access to the Digital Archive. This essay will argue that only by careful scrutiny of these three challenges and the introduction of appropriate practices and procedures will it be possible to prevent the precautionary closure of digital memories for long periods or, worse still, their destruction. We must ensure that our digital memories can be captured, kept, recalled and remain faithful to the events and circumstances that created them

Evaluation of pre-analytical factors affecting plasma DNA analysis.

Pre-analytical factors can significantly affect circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) analysis. However, there are few robust methods to rapidly assess sample quality and the impact of pre-analytical processing. To address this gap and to evaluate effects of DNA extraction methods and blood collection tubes on cfDNA yield and fragment size, we developed a multiplexed droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) assay with 5 short and 4 long amplicons targeting single copy genomic loci. Using this assay, we compared 7 cfDNA extraction kits and found cfDNA yield and fragment size vary significantly. We also compared 3 blood collection protocols using plasma samples from 23 healthy volunteers (EDTA tubes processed within 1 hour and Cell-free DNA Blood Collection Tubes processed within 24 and 72 hours) and found no significant differences in cfDNA yield, fragment size and background noise between these protocols. In 219 clinical samples, cfDNA fragments were shorter in plasma samples processed immediately after venipuncture compared to archived samples, suggesting contribution of background DNA by lysed peripheral blood cells. In summary, we have described a multiplexed ddPCR assay to assess quality of cfDNA samples prior to downstream molecular analyses and we have evaluated potential sources of pre-analytical variation in cfDNA studies

Systematic review of treatment intensification using novel agents for chemoradiotherapy in rectal cancer

Background With the well established shift to neoadjuvant treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer, there is increasing focus on the use of radiosensitizers to improve the efficacy and tolerability of radiotherapy. There currently exist few randomized data exploring novel radiosensitizers to improve response and it is unclear what the clinical endpoints of such trials should be. Methods A qualitative systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines using preset search criteria across the PubMed, Cochrane and Scopus databases from 1990 to 2017. Additional results were generated from the reference lists of included papers. Results A total of 123 papers were identified, of which 37 were included; a further 60 articles were obtained from additional referencing to give a total of 97 articles. Neoadjuvant radiosensitization for locally advanced rectal cancer using fluoropyrimidine‐based chemotherapy remains the standard of treatment. The oral derivative capecitabine has practical advantages over 5‐fluorouracil, with equal efficacy, but the addition of a second chemotherapeutic agent has yet to show a consistent significant efficacy benefit in randomized clinical assessment. Preclinical and early‐phase trials are progressing with promising novel agents, such as small molecular inhibitors and nanoparticles. Conclusion Despite extensive research and promising preclinical studies, a definite further agent in addition to fluoropyrimidines that consistently improves response rate has yet to be found

SCOPE1: a randomised phase II/III multicentre clinical trial of definitive chemoradiation, with or without cetuximab, in carcinoma of the oesophagus

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care for patients with oesophageal cancer unsuitable for surgery due to the presence of co-morbidity or extent of disease, and is a standard treatment option for patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oesophagus. Modern regimens of chemoradiotherapy can lead to significant long-term survival. However the majority of patients will die of their disease, most commonly with local progression/recurrence of their tumours. Cetuximab may overcome one of the principal mechanisms of tumour radio-resistance, namely tumour repopulation, in patients treated with chemoradiotherapy.</p> <p>The purpose of this research is first to determine whether the addition of cetuximab to definitive chemoradiotherapy for treatment of patients with non-metastatic carcinoma of the oesophagus is active (in terms of failure-free rate), safe, and feasible within the context of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in the UK. If the first stage is successful then the trial will continue to accrue sufficient patients to establish whether the addition of cetuximab to the standard treatment improves overall survival.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>SCOPE1 is a two arm, open, randomised multicentre Phase II/III trial. Eligible patients will have histologically confirmed carcinoma of the oesophagus and have been chosen to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy by an accredited multidisciplinary team including a specialist Upper GI surgeon. 420 patients will be randomised to receive definitive chemoradiotherapy with or without cetuximab using a 1:1 allocation ratio.</p> <p>During Phase II of the study, the trial will assess safety (toxicity), activity (failure-free rate) and feasibility (recruitment rate and protocol dose modifications/delays) in 90 patients in the experimental arm. If the experimental arm is found to be active, safe, and feasible by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee then recruitment will continue into Phase III. This second stage will recruit a further 120 patients into each arm and compare the overall survival of both groups.</p> <p>All patients randomised into Phase II will contribute to the Phase III comparison of overall survival. In addition to overall survival, Phase III of the study will also assess toxicity, health related quality of life and cost effectiveness. A detailed radiotherapy protocol and quality assurance procedure has been incorporated into this trial.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN: <a href="http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN47718479">ISRCTN47718479</a></p

NEOSCOPE: A randomized phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by oxaliplatin/capecitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel based pre-operative chemoradiation for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma

Background: Oxaliplatin-capecitabine (OxCap) and carboplatin-paclitaxel (CarPac) based neo-adjuvant chemoradiotherapy (nCRT) have shown promising activity in localised, resectable oesophageal cancer. Patients and methods: A non-blinded, randomised (1:1 via a centralised computer system), ‘pick a winner’ phase II trial. Patients with resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma ≥ cT3 and/or ≥ cN1 were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 day 1, 15, 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd on days of radiotherapy) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 day 1, 8, 15, 22, 29). Radiotherapy dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction OxCap chemotherapy (2 × 3 week cycles of oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 bd days 1–21). Surgery was performed 6–8 weeks after nCRT. Primary end-point was pathological complete response (pCR). Secondary end-points included toxicity, surgical morbidity/mortality, resection rate and overall survival. Statistics: Based on pCR ≤ 15% not warranting future investigation, but pCR ≥ 35% would, 76 patients (38/arm) gave 90% power (one-sided alpha 10%), implying that arm(s) having ≥10 pCR out of first 38 patients could be considered for phase III trials. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829. Funder: Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614). Results: Eighty five patients were randomised between October 2013 and February 2015 from 17 UK centres. Three of 85 (3.5%) died during induction chemotherapy. Seventy-seven patients (OxCapRT = 36; CarPacRT = 41) underwent surgery. The 30-d post-operative mortality was 2/77 (2.6%). Grade III/IV toxicity was comparable between arms, although neutropenia was higher in the CarPacRT arm (21.4% versus 2.6%, p = 0.01). Twelve of 41 (29.3%) (10 of first 38 patients) and 4/36 (11.1%) achieved pCR in the CarPacRT and OxcapRT arms, respectively. Corresponding R0 resection rates were 33/41 (80.5%) and 26/36 (72.2%), respectively. Conclusion: Both regimens were well tolerated. Only CarPacRT passed the predefined pCR criteria for further investigation

Protocol for a multicentre randomised feasibility trial evaluating early Surgery Alone In LOw Rectal cancer (SAILOR)

Introduction There are 11,500 rectal cancers diagnosed annually in the UK. Although surgery remains the primary treatment there is evidence that preoperative radiotherapy (RT) improves local recurrence rates. High quality surgery in rectal cancer is equally important in minimising local recurrence. Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-guided prediction of resection margin status and improvements in abdominoperineal excision of the rectum (APER) technique supports a reassessment of the contribution of preoperative RT. A more selective approach to RT may be appropriate given the associated toxicity. Methods and analysis This trial will explore the feasibility of a definitive trial evaluating the omission of RT in resectable low rectal cancer requiring APER. It will test the feasibility of randomising patients to i) standard care (neoadjuvant long course radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy and APER, or ii) APER surgery alone for cT2/T3ab N0/1 low rectal cancer with clear predicted resection margins on MRI. Radiotherapy schedule will be 45Gy over 5 weeks as current standard, with restaging and surgery after 8-12 weeks. Recruitment will be for 24 months with a minimum 12 month follow up. Objectives include testing the ability to recruit, consent and retain patients, to quantify the number of patients eligible for a definitive trial and to test feasibility of outcomes measures. These include locoregional recurrence rates, distance to circumferential resection margin, toxicity and surgical complications including perineal wound healing, quality of life and economic analysis. The quality of MRI staging, radiotherapy delivery and surgical specimen quality will be closely monitored. Ethics and dissemination The trial is approved by the regional ethics committee and Health Research Authority (HRA) or equivalent. Written informed consent will be obtained. Serious adverse events will be reported to Swansea Trials Unit (STU), the ethics committee and trial sites. Trial results will be submitted for peer review publication and to trial participants. Strengths and limitations of this study • A unique interventional study specific to low rectal cancer • Will explore the contribution of the modern abdominoperineal excision operation to cancer outcomes • Strict quality assurance processes for imaging, radiotherapy, surgery and pathology • Will establish if a future trial minimising radiotherapy use in low rectal cancer is feasible • Study is limited by short follow up perio

Patient-reported measurement of time to diagnosis in cancer: development of the Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM) and randomised controlled trial of method of delivery

Background: The duration between first symptom and a cancer diagnosis is important because, if shortened, may lead to earlier stage diagnosis and improved cancer outcomes. We have previously developed a tool to measure this duration in newly-diagnosed patients. In this two-phase study, we aimed further improve our tool and to conduct a trial comparing levels of anxiety between two modes of delivery: self-completed versus researcher-administered. Methods: In phase 1, ten patients completed the modified tool and participated in cognitive debrief interviews. In phase 2, we undertook a Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) of the revised tool (Cancer Symptom Interval Measure (C-SIM)) in three hospitals for 11 different cancers. Respondents were invited to provide either exact or estimated dates of first noticing symptoms and presenting them to primary care. The primary outcome was anxiety related to delivery mode, with completeness of recording as a secondary outcome. Dates from a subset of patients were compared with GP records. Results: After analysis of phase 1 interviews, the wording and format were improved. In phase 2, 201 patients were randomised (93 self-complete and 108 researcher-complete). Anxiety scores were significantly lower in the researcher-completed group, with a mean rank of 83.5; compared with the self-completed group, with a mean rank of 104.0 (Mann-Whitney U = 3152, p = 0.007). Completeness of data was significantly better in the researcher-completed group, with no statistically significant difference in time taken to complete the tool between the two groups. When comparing the dates in the patient questionnaires with those in the GP records, there was evidence in the records of a consultation on the same date or within a proscribed time window for 32/37 (86%) consultations; for estimated dates there was evidence for 23/37 consultations (62%). Conclusions: We have developed and tested a tool for collecting patient-reported data relating to appraisal intervals, help-seeking intervals, and diagnostic intervals in the cancer diagnostic pathway for 11 separate cancers, and provided evidence of its acceptability, feasibility and validity. This is a useful tool to use in descriptive and epidemiological studies of cancer diagnostic journeys, and causes less anxiety if administered by a researcher

A Therapeutic Antibody against West Nile Virus Neutralizes Infection by Blocking Fusion within Endosomes

Defining the precise cellular mechanisms of neutralization by potently inhibitory antibodies is important for understanding how the immune system successfully limits viral infections. We recently described a potently inhibitory monoclonal antibody (MAb E16) against the envelope (E) protein of West Nile virus (WNV) that neutralizes infection even after virus has spread to the central nervous system. Herein, we define its mechanism of inhibition. E16 blocks infection primarily at a post-attachment step as antibody-opsonized WNV enters permissive cells but cannot escape from endocytic compartments. These cellular experiments suggest that E16 blocks the acid-catalyzed fusion step that is required for nucleocapsid entry into the cytoplasm. Indeed, E16 directly inhibits fusion of WNV with liposomes. Additionally, low-pH exposure of E16–WNV complexes in the absence of target membranes did not fully inactivate infectious virus, further suggesting that E16 prevents a structural transition required for fusion. Thus, a strongly neutralizing anti–WNV MAb with therapeutic potential is potently inhibitory because it blocks viral fusion and thereby promotes clearance by delivering virus to the lysosome for destruction