Measuring Disease-Free Survival and Cancer Relapse Using Medicare Claims From CALGB Breast Cancer Trial Participants (Companion to 9344)

To determine the accuracy with which Medicare claims data measure disease-free survival in elderly Medicare beneficiaries with cancer, we performed a criterion validation study. We merged gold-standard clinical trial data of 45 elderly patients with node-positive breast cancer who were treated on the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CAL-GB) adjuvant breast trial 9344 with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data files and compared the results of a CMS-based algorithm with the CALGB disease-free survival information to determine sensitivity and specificity. For 5-year disease-free survival, the sensitivity of the CMS-based algorithm was 100% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 81% to 100%), the specificity was 97% (95% CI = 83% to 100%), and the area under the receiver operator curve was 97% (95% CI = 90% to 100%). For 2-year disease-free survival, the test characteristics were less favorable: sensitivity was 83% (95% CI = 36% to 100%), specificity was 95% (95% CI = 83% to 100%), and area under the receiver operator curve was 84% (95% CI = 66% to 100%)

Hospital-based health care use correlates with incidence of adverse events among elderly Medicare patients treated in adjuvant chemotherapy trials (Alliance 70802)

Medicare claims can be useful in chemotherapy-related comparative effectiveness research (CER) estimating survival, but methods for estimating patients’ treatment morbidity are currently lacking. We sought to determine if patients’ health care use in the claims is a marker of treatment morbidity

Historic clinical trial external control arm provides actionable GEN-1 efficacy estimate before a randomized trial

PURPOSE: To inform continued development of the novel immune agent GEN-1, we compared ovarian cancer patients\u27 end points from a neoadjuvant single-arm phase IB study with those of similar historic clinical trial (HCT) patients who received standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Applying OVATION-1 trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02480374) inclusion and exclusion criteria to Medidata HCT data, we identified historical trial patients for comparison. Integrating patient-level Medidata historic trial data (N = 41) from distinct neoadjuvant ovarian phase I-III trials with patient-level OVATION-1 data (N = 18), we selected Medidata patients with similar baseline characteristics as OVATION-1 patients using propensity score methods to create an external control arm (ECA). RESULTS: Fifteen OVATION-1 patients (15 of 18, 83%) were matched to 15 (37%, 15 of 41) Medidata historical trial control patients. Matching attenuated preexisting differences in attributes between the groups. The median progression-free survival time was not reached by the OVATION-1 group and was 15.8 months (interquartile range, 11.40 months to nonestimable) for the ECA. The hazard of progression was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.16 to 1.73), favoring GEN-1 patients. Compared with ECA patients, OVATION-1 patients had more nausea, fatigue, chills, and infusion-related reactions. CONCLUSION: Comparing results of a single-arm early-phase trial to those of a rigorously matched HCT ECA yielded insights regarding comparative efficacy prior to a randomized controlled trial. The effect size estimate itself informed both the decision to continue development and the randomized phase II trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03393884) sample size. The work illustrates the potential of HCT data to inform drug development

Generalizability of Trial Results to Elderly Medicare Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors (Alliance 70802)

In the United States, patients who enroll in chemotherapy trials seldom reflect the attributes of the general population with cancer, as they are often younger, more functional, and have less comorbidity. We compared survival following three chemotherapy regimens according to the setting in which care was delivered (ie, clinical trial vs usual care) to determine the generalizability of clinical trial results to unselected elderly Medicare patients

Class in contemporary Britain: comparing the Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion (CCSE) project and the Great British Class Survey (GBCS)

The paper discusses the salience of class in Britain in relation to the experiment of the BBC–academic partnership of the Great British Class Survey (GBCS). It addresses the claimed inauguration of a third phase in class analysis in the UK sparked by the experiment. This is done by considering three main issues. First, the GBCS experiment is situated in the context of various explorations of cultural class analyses, and chiefly in relation to the Cultural Capital and Social Exclusion (CCSE) project (ESRC funded 2003–6). Secondly, the focus is on the influence of the academic turn to big data for the procedures and claims of the project, and some implications of the methodological choices. Thirdly, attention is turned to the deleterious effects of commercial and institutional pressures on the current research culture in which the experiment exists

[Avian cytogenetics goes functional] Third report on chicken genes and chromosomes 2015

High-density gridded libraries of large-insert clones using bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) and other vectors are essential tools for genetic and genomic research in chicken and other avian species... Taken together, these studies demonstrate that applications of large-insert clones and BAC libraries derived from birds are, and will continue to be, effective tools to aid high-throughput and state-of-the-art genomic efforts and the important biological insight that arises from them

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science

It is well documented that the majority of adults, children and families in need of evidence-based behavioral health interventionsi do not receive them [1, 2] and that few robust empirically supported methods for implementing evidence-based practices (EBPs) exist. The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) represents a burgeoning effort to advance the innovation and rigor of implementation research and is uniquely focused on bringing together researchers and stakeholders committed to evaluating the implementation of complex evidence-based behavioral health interventions. Through its diverse activities and membership, SIRC aims to foster the promise of implementation research to better serve the behavioral health needs of the population by identifying rigorous, relevant, and efficient strategies that successfully transfer scientific evidence to clinical knowledge for use in real world settings [3]. SIRC began as a National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)-funded conference series in 2010 (previously titled the “Seattle Implementation Research Conference”; $150,000 USD for 3 conferences in 2011, 2013, and 2015) with the recognition that there were multiple researchers and stakeholdersi working in parallel on innovative implementation science projects in behavioral health, but that formal channels for communicating and collaborating with one another were relatively unavailable. There was a significant need for a forum within which implementation researchers and stakeholders could learn from one another, refine approaches to science and practice, and develop an implementation research agenda using common measures, methods, and research principles to improve both the frequency and quality with which behavioral health treatment implementation is evaluated. SIRC’s membership growth is a testament to this identified need with more than 1000 members from 2011 to the present.ii SIRC’s primary objectives are to: (1) foster communication and collaboration across diverse groups, including implementation researchers, intermediariesi, as well as community stakeholders (SIRC uses the term “EBP champions” for these groups) – and to do so across multiple career levels (e.g., students, early career faculty, established investigators); and (2) enhance and disseminate rigorous measures and methodologies for implementing EBPs and evaluating EBP implementation efforts. These objectives are well aligned with Glasgow and colleagues’ [4] five core tenets deemed critical for advancing implementation science: collaboration, efficiency and speed, rigor and relevance, improved capacity, and cumulative knowledge. SIRC advances these objectives and tenets through in-person conferences, which bring together multidisciplinary implementation researchers and those implementing evidence-based behavioral health interventions in the community to share their work and create professional connections and collaborations