Cancer Experience of Care Improvement Collaboratives in the National Health Service in England

NHS England started the work described in this article with the ambition of using insight and feedback from the adult National Cancer Patient Experience Survey to grow coproduced service improvements leading to improved patient centred quality outcomes in experience for cancer patients. Based on the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Breakthrough Collaborative Series, the approach of the Cancer Experience of Care Improvement Collaboratives (CIC) in the English healthcare system was developed, initially with 19 NHS provider organisation teams in 2019 as a face-to-face model, then developing into two collaboratives with an additional 15 NHS provider organisation teams in Cohort 2 and 8 teams in Rare & Less Common Cancers in a virtual framework. Each cohort has reported improvements in patient experience, staff experience and team working, but more fundamentally, have been able to describe a cultural shift in the way they work, together with people, leaving a lasting impact and legacy of this work. Key learning has been recognised with the increasing emphasis on involving people with relevant lived experience as partners and colleagues in the collaborative, alongside flexibility, responsiveness and adaptability as key to enabling project teams to continue where COVID-19 pressures allowed to participate. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Innovation & Technology lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this len

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To determine the most effective and best‐tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost‐effectiveness associated with the different management strategies for newly diagnosed glioblastoma among adults aged over 70 years

Early palliative interventions for improving outcomes in people with a primary malignant brain tumour and their carers

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: To assess the evidence base for early palliative care interventions, including referral to specialist palliative care services for improving outcomes in people diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their carers

Treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly: a network meta-analysis

Background: A glioblastoma is a fatal type of brain tumour for which the standard of care is maximum surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy, when possible. Age is an important consideration in this disease, as older age is associated with shorter survival and a higher risk of treatment‐related toxicity. Objectives: To determine the most effective and best‐tolerated approaches for the treatment of elderly people with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To summarise current evidence for the incremental resource use, utilities, costs and cost‐effectiveness associated with these approaches. Search methods: We searched electronic databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and Embase to 3 April 2019, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED) up to database closure. We handsearched clinical trial registries and selected neuro‐oncology society conference proceedings from the past five years. Selection criteria: Randomised trials (RCTs) of treatments for glioblastoma in elderly people. We defined ‘elderly' as 70+ years but included studies defining ‘elderly' as over 65+ years if so reported. Data collection and analysis: We used standard Cochrane methods for study selection and data extraction. Where sufficient data were available, treatment options were compared in a network meta‐analysis (NMA) using Stata software (version 15.1). For outcomes with insufficient data for NMA, pairwise meta‐analysis were conducted in RevMan. The GRADE approach was used to grade the evidence. Main results: We included 12 RCTs involving approximately 1818 participants. Six were conducted exclusively among elderly people (either defined as 65 years or older or 70 years or older) with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, the other six reported data for an elderly subgroup among a broader age range of participants. Most participants were capable of self‐care. Study quality was commonly undermined by lack of outcome assessor blinding and attrition. NMA was only possible for overall survival; other analyses were pair‐wise meta‐analyses or narrative syntheses. Seven trials contributed to the NMA for overall survival, with interventions including supportive care only (one trial arm); hypofractionated radiotherapy (RT40; four trial arms); standard radiotherapy (RT60; five trial arms); temozolomide (TMZ; three trial arms); chemoradiotherapy (CRT; three trial arms); bevacizumab with chemoradiotherapy (BEV_CRT; one trial arm); and bevacizumab with radiotherapy (BEV_RT). Compared with supportive care only, NMA evidence suggested that all treatments apart from BEV_RT prolonged survival to some extent. Overall survival: High‐certainty evidence shows that CRT prolongs overall survival (OS) compared with RT40 (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.80) and low‐certainty evidence suggests that CRT may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ (TMZ versus CRT: HR 1.42, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.98). Low‐certainty evidence also suggests that adding BEV to CRT may make little or no difference (BEV_CRT versus CRT: HR 0.83, 95% CrI 0.48 to 1.44). We could not compare the survival effects of CRT with different radiotherapy fractionation schedules (60 Gy/30 fractions and 40 Gy/15 fractions) due to a lack of data. When treatments were ranked according to their effects on OS, CRT ranked higher than TMZ, RT and supportive care only, with the latter ranked last. BEV plus RT was the only treatment for which there was no clear benefit in OS over supportive care only. One trial comparing tumour treating fields (TTF) plus adjuvant chemotherapy (TTF_AC) with adjuvant chemotherapy alone could not be included in the NMA as participants were randomised after receiving concomitant chemoradiotherapy, not before. Findings from the trial suggest that the intervention probably improves overall survival in this selected patient population. We were unable to perform NMA for other outcomes due to insufficient data. Pairwise analyses were conducted for the following. Quality of life: Moderate‐certainty narrative evidence suggests that overall, there may be little difference in QoL between TMZ and RT, except for discomfort from communication deficits, which are probably more common with RT (1 study, 306 participants, P = 0.002). Data on QoL for other comparisons were sparse, partly due to high dropout rates, and the certainty of the evidence tended to be low or very low. Progression‐free survival: High‐certainty evidence shows that CRT increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.61); moderate‐certainty evidence suggests that RT60 probably increases time to disease progression compared with supportive care only (HR 0.28, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.46), and that BEV_RT probably increases time to disease progression compared with RT40 alone (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.78). Evidence for other treatment comparisons was of low‐ or very low‐certainty. Severe adverse events: Moderate‐certainty evidence suggests that TMZ probably increases the risk of grade 3+ thromboembolic events compared with RT60 (risk ratio (RR) 2.74, 95% CI 1.26 to 5.94; participants = 373; studies = 1) and also the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, lymphopenia, and thrombocytopenia. Moderate‐certainty evidence also suggests that CRT probably increases the risk of grade 3+ neutropenia, leucopenia and thrombocytopenia compared with hypofractionated RT alone. Adding BEV to CRT probably increases the risk of thromboembolism (RR 16.63, 95% CI 1.00 to 275.42; moderate‐certainty evidence). Economic evidence: There is a paucity of economic evidence regarding the management of newly diagnosed glioblastoma in the elderly. Only one economic evaluation on two short course radiotherapy regimen (25 Gy versus 40 Gy) was identified and its findings were considered unreliable. Authors' conclusions: For elderly people with glioblastoma who are self‐caring, evidence suggests that CRT prolongs survival compared with RT and may prolong overall survival compared with TMZ alone. For those undergoing RT or TMZ therapy, there is probably little difference in QoL overall. Systemic anti‐cancer treatments TMZ and BEV carry a higher risk of severe haematological and thromboembolic events and CRT is probably associated with a higher risk of these events. Current evidence provides little justification for using BEV in elderly patients outside a clinical trial setting. Whilst the novel TTF device appears promising, evidence on QoL and tolerability is needed in an elderly population. QoL and economic assessments of CRT versus TMZ and RT are needed. More high‐quality economic evaluations are needed, in which a broader scope of costs (both direct and indirect) and outcomes should be included

Priorities for methodological research on patient and public involvement in clinical trials A modified Delphi process

Background Despite increasing international interest, there is a lack of evidence about the most efficient, effective and acceptable ways to implement patient and public involvement (PPI) in clinical trials. Objective To identify the priorities of UK PPI stakeholders for methodological research to help resolve uncertainties about PPI in clinical trials. Design A modified Delphi process including a two round online survey and a stakeholder consensus meeting. Participants In total, 237 people registered of whom 219 (92%) completed the first round. One hundred and eighty-seven of 219 (85%) completed the second; 25 stakeholders attended the consensus meeting. Results Round 1 of the survey comprised 36 topics; 42 topics were considered in round 2 and at the consensus meeting. Approximately 96% of meeting participants rated the top three topics as equally important. These were as follows: developing strong and productive working relationships between researchers and PPI contributors; exploring PPI practices in selecting trial outcomes of importance to patients; and a systematic review of PPI activity to improve the accessibility and usefulness of trial information (eg participant information sheets) for participants. Conclusions The prioritized methodological research topics indicate important areas of uncertainty about PPI in trials. Addressing these uncertainties will be critical to enhancing PPI. Our findings should be used in the planning and funding of PPI in clinical trials to help focus research efforts and minimize waste

Clinical Development of Novel Drug-Radiotherapy Combinations.

Radiotherapy is a fundamental component of treatment for the majority of patients with cancer. In recent decades, technological advances have enabled patients to receive more targeted doses of radiation to the tumor, with sparing of adjacent normal tissues. There had been hope that the era of precision medicine would enhance the combination of radiotherapy with targeted anticancer drugs; however, this ambition remains to be realized. In view of this lack of progress, the FDA-AACR-ASTRO Clinical Development of Drug-Radiotherapy Combinations Workshop was held in February 2018 to bring together stakeholders and opinion leaders from academia, clinical radiation oncology, industry, patient advocacy groups, and the FDA to discuss challenges to introducing new drug-radiotherapy combinations to the clinic. This Perspectives in Regulatory Science and Policy article summarizes the themes and action points that were discussed. Intelligent trial design is required to increase the number of studies that efficiently meet their primary outcomes; endpoints to be considered include local control, organ preservation, and patient-reported outcomes. Novel approaches including immune-oncology or DNA-repair inhibitor agents combined with radiotherapy should be prioritized. In this article, we focus on how the regulatory challenges associated with defining a new drug-radiotherapy combination can be overcome to improve clinical outcomes for patients with cancer

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgical neuro-oncology multi-disciplinary team decision making: a national survey (COVID-CNSMDT Study).

OBJECTIVES: Pressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making. DESIGN: A prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020. SETTING: Regional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study). PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK. RESULTS: 18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/)