Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas

The Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis receives funding for a research programme from the UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme (grant no. 106/0001). It is a collaboration between researchers from seven institutions (the Queen Mary University of London, the UCL, the King’s College London, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, the Hull York Medical School, the Durham University and the Peninsula Medical School)

Strengthening clinical cancer research in the United Kingdom

BACKGROUND: In 1999, 270 000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research.METHODS: The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established.RESULTS: Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32 000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established.CONCLUSION: The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care. British Journal of Cancer (2011) 104, 1529-1534. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.69 www.bjcancer.com Published online 1 March 2011 (C) 2011 Cancer Research U

Meta-analysis of randomised adjuvant therapy trials for pancreatic cancer

The aim of this study was to investigate the worldwide evidence of the roles of adjuvant chemoradiation and adjuvant chemotherapy on survival in potentially curative resected pancreatic cancer. Five randomised controlled trials of adjuvant treatment in patients with histologically proven pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma were identified, of which the four most recent trials provided individual patient data (875 patients). This meta-analysis includes previously unpublished follow-up data on 261 patients. The pooled estimate of the hazard ratio (HR) indicated a 25% significant reduction in the risk of death with chemotherapy (HR=0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64, 0.90, P-valuesstratified (Pstrat)=0.001) with median survival estimated at 19.0 (95% CI: 16.4, 21.1) months with chemotherapy and 13.5 (95% CI: 12.2, 15.8) without. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were estimated at 38 and 19%, respectively, with chemotherapy and 28 and 12% without. The pooled estimate of the HR indicated no significant difference in the risk of death with chemoradiation (HR=1.09, 95% CI: 0.89, 1.32, Pstrat=0.43) with median survivals estimated at 15.8 (95% CI: 13.9, 18.1) months with chemoradiation and 15.2 (95% CI: 13.1, 18.2) without. The 2- and 5-year survival rates were estimated at 30 and 12%, respectively, with chemoradiation and 34 and 17% without. Subgroup analyses estimated that chemoradiation was more effective and chemotherapy less effective in patients with positive resection margins. These results show that chemotherapy is effective adjuvant treatment in pancreatic cancer but not chemoradiation. Further studies with chemoradiation are warranted in patients with positive resection margins, as chemotherapy appeared relatively ineffective in this patient subgroup

Meta-analysis of randomized trials: evaluation of benefit from gemcitabine-based combination chemotherapy applied in advanced pancreatic cancer

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Single-agent gemcitabine (GEM) is a standard treatment for advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer. This study examines the question whether GEM-based combination chemotherapy can further improve treatment efficacy.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate randomized trials comparing GEM versus GEM+X (X = cytotoxic agent). Fifteen trials including 4465 patients were eligible for an analysis of overall survival, the primary end-point of this investigation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The meta-analysis revealed a significant survival benefit for GEM+X with a pooled hazard ratio (HR) of 0.91 (95% CI: 0.85 – 0.97, p = 0.004). The overall test for heterogeneity resulted in p = 0.82 (I²= 0%). The analysis of platinum-based combinations indicated a HR of 0.85 (95% CI: 0.76 – 0.96, p = 0.010), while for fluoropyrimidine-based combinations the HR was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.81 – 0.99, p = 0.030). No risk reduction was observed in the group of trials combining GEM with irinotecan, exatecan or pemetrexed (HR = 0.99). A meta-analysis of the trials with adequate information on baseline performance status (PS) was performed in five trials with 1682 patients. This analysis indicated that patients with a good PS had a marked survival benefit when receiving combination chemotherapy (HR = 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67 – 0.87; p < 0.0001). By contrast, application of combination chemotherapy to patients with an initially poor PS appeared to be ineffective (HR = 1.08; 95% CI: 0.90 – 1.29, p = 0.40).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The meta-analysis of randomized trials indicated a significant survival benefit when GEM was either combined with platinum analogs or fluoropyrimidines. Based on a preliminary subgroup analysis (representing 38% of all patients included in this meta-analysis), pancreatic cancer patients with a good PS appear to benefit from GEM-based cytotoxic combinations, whereas patients with a poor PS seem to have no survival benefit from combination chemotherapy.</p

Utilisation of an operative difficulty grading scale for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Background A reliable system for grading operative difficulty of laparoscopic cholecystectomy would standardise description of findings and reporting of outcomes. The aim of this study was to validate a difficulty grading system (Nassar scale), testing its applicability and consistency in two large prospective datasets. Methods Patient and disease-related variables and 30-day outcomes were identified in two prospective cholecystectomy databases: the multi-centre prospective cohort of 8820 patients from the recent CholeS Study and the single-surgeon series containing 4089 patients. Operative data and patient outcomes were correlated with Nassar operative difficultly scale, using Kendall’s tau for dichotomous variables, or Jonckheere–Terpstra tests for continuous variables. A ROC curve analysis was performed, to quantify the predictive accuracy of the scale for each outcome, with continuous outcomes dichotomised, prior to analysis. Results A higher operative difficulty grade was consistently associated with worse outcomes for the patients in both the reference and CholeS cohorts. The median length of stay increased from 0 to 4 days, and the 30-day complication rate from 7.6 to 24.4% as the difficulty grade increased from 1 to 4/5 (both p < 0.001). In the CholeS cohort, a higher difficulty grade was found to be most strongly associated with conversion to open and 30-day mortality (AUROC = 0.903, 0.822, respectively). On multivariable analysis, the Nassar operative difficultly scale was found to be a significant independent predictor of operative duration, conversion to open surgery, 30-day complications and 30-day reintervention (all p < 0.001). Conclusion We have shown that an operative difficulty scale can standardise the description of operative findings by multiple grades of surgeons to facilitate audit, training assessment and research. It provides a tool for reporting operative findings, disease severity and technical difficulty and can be utilised in future research to reliably compare outcomes according to case mix and intra-operative difficulty

Clostridium difficile Infections amongst Patients with Haematological Malignancies: A Data Linkage Study

OBJECTIVES: Identify risk factors for Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and assess CDI outcomes among Australian patients with a haematological malignancy. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study involving all patients admitted to hospitals in Western Australia with a haematological malignancy from July 2011 to June 2012. Hospital admission data were linked with all hospital investigated CDI case data. Potential risk factors were assessed by logistic regression. The risk of death within 60 and 90 days of CDI was assessed by Cox Proportional Hazards regression. RESULTS: There were 2085 patients of whom 65 had at least one CDI. Twenty percent of CDI cases were either community-acquired, indeterminate source or had only single-day admissions in the 28 days prior to CDI. Using logistic regression, having acute lymphocytic leukaemia, neutropenia and having had bacterial pneumonia or another bacterial infection were associated with CDI. CDI was associated with an increased risk of death within 60 and 90 days post CDI, but only two deaths had CDI recorded as an antecedent factor. Ribotyping information was available for 33 of the 65 CDIs. There were 19 different ribotypes identified. CONCLUSIONS: Neutropenia was strongly associated with CDI. While having CDI is a risk factor for death, in many cases it may not be a direct contributor to death but may reflect patients having higher morbidity. A wide variety of C. difficile ribotypes were found and community-acquired infection may be under-estimated in these patients

Adding a treatment arm to an ongoing clinical trial: a review of methodology and practice

Incorporating an emerging therapy as a new randomisation arm in a clinical trial that is open to recruitment would be desirable to researchers, regulators and patients to ensure that the trial remains current, new treatments are evaluated as quickly as possible, and the time and cost for determining optimal therapies is minimised. It may take many years to run a clinical trial from concept to reporting within a rapidly changing drug development environment; hence, in order for trials to be most useful to inform policy and practice, it is advantageous for them to be able to adapt to emerging therapeutic developments. This paper reports a comprehensive literature review on methodologies for, and practical examples of, amending an ongoing clinical trial by adding a new treatment arm. Relevant methodological literature describing statistical considerations required when making this specific type of amendment is identified, and the key statistical concepts when planning the addition of a new treatment arm are extracted, assessed and summarised. For completeness, this includes an assessment of statistical recommendations within general adaptive design guidance documents. Examples of confirmatory ongoing trials designed within the frequentist framework that have added an arm in practice are reported; and the details of the amendment are reviewed. An assessment is made as to how well the relevant statistical considerations were addressed in practice, and the related implications. The literature review confirmed that there is currently no clear methodological guidance on this topic, but that guidance would be advantageous to help this efficient design amendment to be used more frequently and appropriately in practice. Eight confirmatory trials were identified to have added a treatment arm, suggesting that trials can benefit from this amendment and that it can be practically feasible; however, the trials were not always able to address the key statistical considerations, often leading to uninterpretable or invalid outcomes. If the statistical concepts identified within this review are considered and addressed during the design of a trial amendment, it is possible to effectively assess a new treatment arm within an ongoing trial without compromising the original trial outcomes