Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol

Introduction Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported. Hypothesis: Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.

Methods and analysis Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.

Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r).

Roadmap to clinical use of gold nanoparticles for radiation sensitization

The past decade has seen a dramatic increase in interest in the use of gold nanoparticles (GNPs) as radiation sensitizers for radiation therapy. This interest was initially driven by their strong absorption of ionizing radiation and the resulting ability to increase dose deposited within target volumes even at relatively low concentrations. These early observations are supported by extensive experimental validation, showing GNPs' efficacy at sensitizing tumors in both in vitro and in vivo systems to a range of types of ionizing radiation, including kilovoltage and megavoltage X rays as well as charged particles. Despite this experimental validation, there has been limited translation of GNP-mediated radiation sensitization to a clinical setting. One of the key challenges in this area is the wide range of experimental systems that have been investigated, spanning a range of particle sizes, shapes, and preparations. As a result, mechanisms of uptake and radiation sensitization have remained difficult to clearly identify. This has proven a significant impediment to the identification of optimal GNP formulations which strike a balance among their radiation sensitizing properties, their specificity to the tumors, their biocompatibility, and their imageability in vivo. This white paper reviews the current state of knowledge in each of the areas concerning the use of GNPs as radiosensitizers, and outlines the steps which will be required to advance GNP-enhanced radiation therapy from their current pre-clinical setting to clinical trials and eventual routine usage.

How can we use systematic reviews to inform clinical practice?

Aims/purpose: Systematic reviews provide the highest quality evidence and inform clinical practice. For patient benefit, it is imperative that nurses keep abreast of evidence-based practice. This presentation highlights where to find systematic reviews and how the information presented can be used to inform care.
Presentation description: Clinical research is increasing at an incredible rate. In the clinical trials database alone, more than 2000 new studies are registered/month and this does not include qualitative studies that do not require registration. Keeping abreast of current evidence can not only be a time consuming process, but can be problematic when studies produce conflicting results. Systematic reviews can be useful for summarizing the increasing amount of knowledge that is gained from scientific papers. In addition, combining individual studies in a meta-analysis increases statistical power, resulting in more precise effect estimates. This presentation draws upon a few systematic reviews relevant to ICU nursing practice, highlights their findings and demonstrates how the information can be used to inform translation of evidence into practice. Additionally, although these reviews include steps to minimize bias, nurses should be aware of some of the biases that may reduce confidence in the findings.
Conclusion: Systematic reviews can be useful tools for informing evidence based practice, although careful interpretation is necessary for understanding their relevance to local practice.