Sensible introduction of MR-guided radiotherapy: A warm plea for the RCT

Magnetic resonance guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) is the newest face of technology within a field long-characterized by continual technologic advance. MRgRT may offer improvement in the therapeutic index of radiation by offering novel planning types, like online adaptation, and improved image guidance, but there is a paucity of randomized data or ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to demonstrate clinical gains. Strong clinical evidence is needed to confirm the theoretical advantages of MRgRT and for the rapid dissemination of (and reimbursement for) appropriate use. Although some future evidence for MRgRT may come from large registries and non-randomized studies, RCTs should make up the core of this future data, and should be undertaken with thoughtful preconception, endpoints that incorporate patient-reported outcomes, and warm collaboration across existing MRgRT platforms. The advance and future success of MRgRT hinges on collaborative pursuit of the RCT

Prognosis after surgery for multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors:Functionality matters

Background: Metastasized pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are the leading cause of death in patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1. Aside from tumor size, prognostic factors of pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors are largely unknown. The present study aimed to assess whether the prognosis of patients with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors differs from those with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related insulinomas and assessed factors associated with prognosis.Methods: Patients who underwent resection of a multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors between 1990 and 2016 were identified in 2 databases: the DutchMEN Study Group and the International MEN1 Insulinoma Study Group databases. Cox regression was performed to compare liver metastases-free survival of patients with a nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors versus those with an insulinoma and to identify factors associated with liver metastases-free survival.Results: Out of 153 patients with multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1, 61 underwent resection for a nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor and 92 for an insulinoma. Of the patients with resected lymph nodes, 56% (18/32) of nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had lymph node metastases compared to 10% (4/41) of insulinomas (P =.001). Estimated 10-year liver metastases-free survival was 63% (95% confidence interval 42%–76%) for nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors and 87% (72%–91%) for insulinomas. After adjustment for size, World Health Organization tumor grade, and age, nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had an increased risk for liver metastases or death (hazard ratio 3.04 [1.47–6.30]). In pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors ≥2 cm, nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (2.99 [1.22–7.33]) and World Health Organization grade 2 (2.95 [1.02–8.50]) were associated with liver metastases-free survival.Conclusion: Patients with resected multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1-related nonfunctioning pancreatic neuroendocrine tumors had a significantly lower liver metastases-free survival than patients with insulinomas. Postoperative counseling and follow-up regimens should be tumor type specific and at least consider size and World Health Organization grade.</p

Transarterial RAdioembolization versus ChemoEmbolization for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (TRACE) : study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma is a primary malignant tumor of the liver that accounts for an important health problem worldwide. Only 10 to 15% of hepatocellular carcinoma patients are suitable candidates for treatment with curative intent, such as hepatic resection and liver transplantation. A majority of patients have locally advanced, liver restricted disease (Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) staging system intermediate stage). Transarterial loco regional treatment modalities offer palliative treatment options for these patients; transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the current standard treatment. During TACE, a catheter is advanced into the branches of the hepatic artery supplying the tumor, and a combination of embolic material and chemotherapeutics is delivered through the catheter directly into the tumor. Yttrium-90 radioembolization (Y-90-RE) involves the transarterial administration of minimally embolic microspheres loaded with Yttrium-90, a beta-emitting isotope, delivering selective internal radiation to the tumor. Y-90-RE is increasingly used in clinical practice for treatment of intermediate stage hepatocellular carcinoma, but its efficacy has never been prospectively compared to that of the standard treatment (TACE). In this study, we describe the protocol of a multicenter randomized controlled trial aimed at comparing the effectiveness of TACE and Y-90-RE for treatment of patients with unresectable (BCLC intermediate stage) hepatocellular carcinoma. Methods/design: In this pragmatic randomized controlled trial, 140 patients with unresectable (BCLC intermediate stage) hepatocellular carcinoma, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0 to 1 and Child-Pugh A to B will be randomly assigned to either Y-90-RE or TACE with drug eluting beads. Patients assigned to Y-90-RE will first receive a diagnostic angiography, followed by the actual transarterial treatment, which can be divided into two sessions in case of bilobar disease. Patients assigned to TACE will receive a maximum of three consecutive transarterial treatment sessions. Patients will undergo structural follow-up for a timeframe of two years post treatment. Post procedural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) will be performed at one and three months post trial entry and at three-monthly intervals thereafter for two years to assess tumor response. Primary outcome will be time to progression. Secondary outcomes will be overall survival, tumor response according to the modified RECIST criteria, toxicities/adverse events, treatment related effect on total liver function, quality of life, treatment-related costs and cost-effectiveness

Colorectal cancer care and patients’ perceptions before and during COVID-19: implications for subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection waves

BACKGROUND: Changes in colorectal cancer (CRC) care planning due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and associated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and well-being of patients with CRC are unknown. We report changes in CRC care and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) including HRQoL, distress, and loneliness during the first wave of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: In April 2020, 4,984 patients included in the nationwide Prospective Dutch Colorectal Cancer cohort were invited to complete a COVID-19-specific questionnaire, together with the validated EORTC QLQ-C30, De Jong Gierveld, and HADS. Clinical data were obtained from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Scores were compared with the year prior to COVID-19, and with an age- and sex-matched control population during COVID-19. RESULTS: In total, 3,247 (65.1%) patients responded between April and June 2020. Seventeen percent of patients had cancelled/postponed/changed hospital visits into a telephone- or video consult while 5.3% had adjusted/postponed/cancelled treatment. Compared to controls, patients reported worse HRQoL, but comparable distress and less social loneliness (patients = 21.2%; controls = 32.9%). Compared to pre-COVID-19, clinically meaningful deterioration of HRQoL was more prevalent in patients with changes in cancer care planning than in patients without changes. Prior to undergoing or currently undergoing treatment, and infection worries were associated with lower HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: CRC patients reported equal anxiety and depression, but worse HRQoL than the control population. Changes in care planning were associated with deterioration of HRQoL and increased anxiety. In case of one or more risk factors, healthcare specialists should discuss (mental) health status and possible support during future SARS-CoV-2 infection waves or comparable pandemics

Most patients reported positively or neutrally of having served as controls in the trials within cohorts design

Objectives: To evaluate patients’ experience of having served as controls without a notification at the time of randomization in the context of the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design. Methods: Patients were asked for their opinion on having served as controls in TwiCs, before and after having been provided the trial results. Patients had provided broad consent to randomization at cohort entry and had served as controls in one of two TwiCs (an exercise program after breast cancer treatment or radiotherapy dose-escalation for rectal cancer). Results: Two to 6 years after cohort entry, 15% (n = 16) of all patients remembered having provided broad consent to randomization. Before disclosure of trial results, 47% (n = 52) of patients thought positively, 45% (n = 50) neutrally, and 2% (n = 2) negatively of having served as controls in one of the two trials. Seventeen percent (n = 18) of patients were positive, 65% (n = 71) neutral, and 11% (n = 12) negative about not having been notified when serving as controls. The survey results were comparable after disclosure of trial results. Conclusions: These results support the use of the TwiCs design with the staged-informed consent procedure. Keeping patients engaged and aware of the consents provided might further improve patients’ experience of serving as controls in TwiCs

The ethics of ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs): 2nd international symposium - London, UK. 7-8 November 2016

On 7-8 th November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘ Trials within Cohorts ’ (TwiCs) approach for randomised controlled trial design met in London. The purpose of this 2 nd TwiCs international symposium was to share perspectives and experiences on ethical aspects of the TwiCs design, discuss how TwiCs relate to the current ethical frame- work, provide a forum in which to discuss and debate ethical issues and identify future directions for conceptual and empirical research. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton and attended by people from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. The two-day sympo- sium enabled an international group to meet and share experiences of the TwiCs design (also known as the ‘ cohort multiple RCT design ’ ), and to discuss plans for future research. Over the two days, invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini pre- sentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators. Key findings of the symposium were: (1) It is possible to make a compelling case to ethics committees that TwiCs designs are ap- propriate and ethical; (2) The importance of wider considerations around the ethics of inefficient trial designs; and (3) some questions about the ethical requirements for content and timing of informed consent for a study using the TwiCs design need to be decided on a case-by-case basis

Does the Axillary Lymph Node Ratio Have Any Added Prognostic Value over pN Staging for South East Asian Breast Cancer Patients?

10.1371/journal.pone.0045809PLoS ONE79

Oncology patients were found to understand and accept the Trials within Cohorts design

Background and Objective: The Trials within Cohorts design aims to reduce recruitment difficulties and disappointment bias in pragmatic trials. On cohort enrollment, broad informed consent for randomization is asked, after which cohort participants can be randomized to interventions or serve as controls without further notification. We evaluated patients' recollection, understanding, and acceptance of broad consent in a clinical oncology setting. Methods: We surveyed 610 patients with cancer participating in ongoing TwiCs; 482 patients (79%) responded, of which 312 patients shortly after cohort enrollment, 108 patients after randomization to an intervention (12-18 months after cohort enrollment), and a random sample of 62 cohort participants who had not been selected for interventions (1-6 months after cohort enrollment). Results: Shortly after providing cohort consent, 76% of patients (238/312) adequately remembered whether they had given broad consent for randomization. Of patients randomly offered interventions, 76% (82/108) remembered giving broad consent for randomization; 41% (44/108) understood they were randomly selected, 44% (48/108) were not interested in selection procedures, and 10% (11/108) did not understand selection was random. Among patients not selected for interventions, 42% (26/62) understood selection was random; 89% felt neutral regarding the scenario of "not being selected for an intervention while your data were being used in comparison with patients receiving interventions,"10% felt reassured (6/62) and 2% scared/insecure (2/62). Conclusion: Patients adequately remember giving broad consent for randomization shortly after cohort enrollment and after being offered an intervention, but recollection is lower in those never selected for interventions. Patients are acceptant of serving as control without further notifications. (c) 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)