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).

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up.

METHODS: CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b-T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3-6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9-77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0-90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5-92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4-88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68-1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99-1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported.

INTERPRETATION: Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Patient-reported quality-of-life analysis of radium-223 dichloride from the phase III ALSYMPCA study

BACKGROUND: Radium-223 dichloride (radium-223), a first-in-class α-emitting radiopharmaceutical, is recommended in both pre- and post-docetaxel settings in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) and symptomatic bone metastases based on overall survival benefit demonstrated in the phase III ALSYMPCA study. ALSYMPCA included prospective measurements of health-related quality of life (QOL) using two validated instruments: the general EuroQoL 5D (EQ-5D) and the disease-specific Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P).

PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analyses were conducted to determine treatment effects of radium-223 plus standard of care (SOC) versus placebo plus SOC on QOL using FACT-P and EQ-5D. Outcomes assessed were percentage of patients experiencing improvement, percentage of patients experiencing worsening, and mean QOL scores during the study.

RESULTS: Analyses were carried out on the intent-to-treat population of patients randomized to receive radium-223 (n = 614) or placebo (n = 307). The mean baseline EQ-5D utility and FACT-P total scores were similar between treatment groups. A significantly higher percentage of patients receiving radium-223 experienced meaningful improvement in EQ-5D utility score on treatment versus placebo {29.2% versus 18.5%, respectively; P = 0.004; odds ratio (OR) = 1.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21-2.74]}. Findings were similar for FACT-P total score [24.6% versus 16.1%, respectively; P = 0.020; OR = 1.70 (95% CI 1.08-2.65)]. A lower percentage of patients receiving radium-223 experienced meaningful worsening versus placebo measured by EQ-5D utility score and FACT-P total score. Prior docetaxel use and current bisphosphonate use did not affect these findings. Treatment was a significant predictor of EQ-5D utility score, with radium-223 associated with higher scores versus placebo (0.56 versus 0.50, respectively; P = 0.002). Findings were similar for FACT-P total score (99.08 versus 95.22, respectively; P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS: QOL data from ALSYMPCA demonstrated that improved survival with radium-223 is accompanied by significant QOL benefits, including a higher percentage of patients with meaningful QOL improvement and a slower decline in QOL over time in patients with CRPC.

A 'before and after' study of nursing students' self-assessed competence in identifying the needs of older patients in hospital using an educational workbook.

Background: A core component of nurse education is clinical practice in order to support the development of clinical skills and competence. Assessment and measurement of the clinical competence of nursing students is important to gauge their professional development and educational needs.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of an Older Persons’ Assessment Educational Workbook (OPAEW) and explore second year nursing students’ competence and their opinions and use of the workbook.

Methods: A ‘before and after’ pre-experimental design was undertaken with n=6 second year nursing students. Outcome measures were the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire and the Self-efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale. Content analysis of workbooks and a survey (n=5) of opinions regarding the workbook was undertaken.

Findings: Pre and post test results for the study (n=5) were tested to determine if there was a relationship between changes in the NCQ and SECP repeated measures and use of an OPAEW. Testing identified evidence of a statistically significant difference for both SECP measures (SECP28 p=0.043; SECP7 p=0.042), with no clear statistical evidence of a difference for the NCQ (p=0.08). A weak negative association (NCQ ρ=-0.600 p=0.285; SECP28 ρ=-0.300 p=0.624; SECP7 ρ=-0.205 p=0.741), was found indicating that those participants who scored the lowest scores at the start of the study, benefited most from the workbook.

Content analysis of the OPAEW (n=5) found that 3 of the 5 participants completed all components of the workbook, with a mean of 1051 words used (SD 281.8). Through the survey (n=5) students reported the workbook as a useful guide when undertaking a patient assessment.

Conclusions: The OPAEW showed potential as an intervention to support the development of nursing students’ competence in older person assessment skills.

A 'before and after' study of nursing students' self-assessed competence in identifying the needs of older patients in hospital using an educational workbook.

Background: A core component of nurse education is clinical practice in order to support the development of clinical skills and competence. Assessment and measurement of the clinical competence of nursing students is important to gauge their professional development and educational needs.

Aim: To evaluate the impact of an Older Persons’ Assessment Educational Workbook (OPAEW) and explore second year nursing students’ competence and their opinions and use of the workbook.

Methods: A ‘before and after’ pre-experimental design was undertaken with n=6 second year nursing students. Outcome measures were the Nursing Competencies Questionnaire and the Self-efficacy in Clinical Performance Scale. Content analysis of workbooks and a survey (n=5) of opinions regarding the workbook was undertaken.

Findings: Pre and post test results for the study (n=5) were tested to determine if there was a relationship between changes in the NCQ and SECP repeated measures and use of an OPAEW. Testing identified evidence of a statistically significant difference for both SECP measures (SECP28 p=0.043; SECP7 p=0.042), with no clear statistical evidence of a difference for the NCQ (p=0.08). A weak negative association (NCQ ρ=-0.600 p=0.285; SECP28 ρ=-0.300 p=0.624; SECP7 ρ=-0.205 p=0.741), was found indicating that those participants who scored the lowest scores at the start of the study, benefited most from the workbook.

Content analysis of the OPAEW (n=5) found that 3 of the 5 participants completed all components of the workbook, with a mean of 1051 words used (SD 281.8). Through the survey (n=5) students reported the workbook as a useful guide when undertaking a patient assessment.

Conclusions: The OPAEW showed potential as an intervention to support the development of nursing students’ competence in older person assessment skills.

Patient perspectives of a diagnosis of myeloproliferative neoplasm in a case control study

Background: Myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) including the classic entities; polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET) and primary myelofibrosis are rare diseases with unknown aetiology. The MOSAICC study, is an exploratory case–control study in which information was collected through telephone questionnaires and medical records. Methods: As part of the study, 106 patients with MPN were asked about their perceived diagnosis and replies correlated with their haematologist’s diagnosis. For the first time, a patient perspective on their MPN diagnosis and classification was obtained. Logistic regression analyses were utilised to evaluate the role of variables in whether or not a patient reported their diagnosis during interview with co-adjustment for these variables. Chi square tests were used to investigate the association between MPN subtype and patient reported categorisation of MPN. Results: Overall, 77.4 % of patients reported a diagnosis of MPN. Of those, 39.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘blood condition’,23.6 % recognised MPN as a ‘cancer’ and 13.2 % acknowledged MPN as an ‘other medical condition’. There was minimal overlap between the categories. Patients with PV were more likely than those with ET to report their disease as a ‘blood condition’. ET patients were significantly more likely than PV patients not to report their condition at all.Patients from a single centre were more likely to report their diagnosis as MPN while age, educational status, and WHO re-classification had no effect. Conclusions: The discrepancy between concepts of MPN in patients could result from differing patient interest in their condition, varying information conveyed by treating hematologists, concealment due to denial or financial concerns. Explanations for the differences in patient perception of the nature of their disease, requires further, larger scale investigation.

Withdrawal of Antidementia Drugs in Older People: Who, When and How?

The evidence base to guide withdrawal of antidementia medications in older people with dementia is limited; while some randomised controlled studies have considered discontinuation of cholinesterase inhibitors, no such studies examining discontinuation of the N-Methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonist memantine have been conducted to date. The purpose of this opinion article was to summarise the existing evidence on withdrawal of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine, to highlight the key considerations for clinicians when making these prescribing decisions and to offer guidance as to when and how treatment might be discontinued. Until the evidence-base is enhanced by the findings of large scale randomised controlled discontinuation trials of ChEIs and memantine which use multiple, clinically relevant cognitive, functional and behavioural outcome measures, clinicians’ prescribing decisions involve balancing the risks of discontinuation with side-effects and costs of continued treatment. Such decisions must be highly individualised and patient-centred.