Telehealth system (e-CUIDATE) to improve quality of life in breast cancer survivors: rationale and study protocol for a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND Breast cancer survivors suffer physical impairment after oncology treatment. This impairment reduces quality of life (QoL) and increase the prevalence of handicaps associated to unhealthy lifestyle (for example, decreased aerobic capacity and strength, weight gain, and fatigue). Recent work has shown that exercise adapted to individual characteristics of patients is related to improved overall and disease-free survival. Nowadays, technological support using telerehabilitation systems is a promising strategy with great advantage of a quick and efficient contact with the health professional. It is not known the role of telerehabilitation through therapeutic exercise as a support tool to implement an active lifestyle which has been shown as an effective resource to improve fitness and reduce musculoskeletal disorders of these women. METHODS / DESIGN This study will use a two-arm, assessor blinded, parallel randomized controlled trial design. People will be eligible if: their diagnosis is of stages I, II, or IIIA breast cancer; they are without chronic disease or orthopedic issues that would interfere with ability to participate in a physical activity program; they had access to the Internet and basic knowledge of computer use or living with a relative who has this knowledge; they had completed adjuvant therapy except for hormone therapy and not have a history of cancer recurrence; and they have an interest in improving lifestyle. Participants will be randomized into e-CUIDATE or usual care groups. E-CUIDATE give participants access to a range of contents: planning exercise arranged in series with breathing exercises, mobility, strength, and stretching. All of these exercises will be assigned to women in the telerehabilitation group according to perceived needs. The control group will be asked to maintain their usual routine. Study endpoints will be assessed after 8 weeks (immediate effects) and after 6 months. The primary outcome will be QoL measured by The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 version 3.0 and breast module called The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire. The secondary outcomes: pain (algometry, Visual Analogue Scale, Brief Pain Inventory short form); body composition; physical measurement (abdominal test, handgrip strength, back muscle strength, and multiple sit-to-stand test); cardiorespiratory fitness (International Fitness Scale, 6-minute walk test, International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form); fatigue (Piper Fatigue Scale and Borg Fatigue Scale); anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale); cognitive function (Trail Making Test and Auditory Consonant Trigram); accelerometry; lymphedema; and anthropometric perimeters. DISCUSSION This study investigates the feasibility and effectiveness of a telerehabilitation system during adjuvant treatment of patients with breast cancer. If this treatment option is effective, telehealth systems could offer a choice of supportive care to cancer patients during the survivorship phase. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01801527.

Use of Two-Part Regression Calibration Model to Correct for Measurement Error in Episodically Consumed Foods in a Single-Replicate Study Design: EPIC Case Study.

In epidemiologic studies, measurement error in dietary variables often attenuates association between dietary intake and disease occurrence. To adjust for the attenuation caused by error in dietary intake, regression calibration is commonly used. To apply regression calibration, unbiased reference measurements are required. Short-term reference measurements for foods that are not consumed daily contain excess zeroes that pose challenges in the calibration model. We adapted two-part regression calibration model, initially developed for multiple replicates of reference measurements per individual to a single-replicate setting. We showed how to handle excess zero reference measurements by two-step modeling approach, how to explore heteroscedasticity in the consumed amount with variance-mean graph, how to explore nonlinearity with the generalized additive modeling (GAM) and the empirical logit approaches, and how to select covariates in the calibration model. The performance of two-part calibration model was compared with the one-part counterpart. We used vegetable intake and mortality data from European Prospective Investigation on Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) study. In the EPIC, reference measurements were taken with 24-hour recalls. For each of the three vegetable subgroups assessed separately, correcting for error with an appropriately specified two-part calibration model resulted in about three fold increase in the strength of association with all-cause mortality, as measured by the log hazard ratio. Further found is that the standard way of including covariates in the calibration model can lead to over fitting the two-part calibration model. Moreover, the extent of adjusting for error is influenced by the number and forms of covariates in the calibration model. For episodically consumed foods, we advise researchers to pay special attention to response distribution, nonlinearity, and covariate inclusion in specifying the calibration model.

Liver safety assessment: required data elements and best practices for data collection and standardization in clinical trials.

A workshop was convened to discuss best practices for the assessment of drug-induced liver injury (DILI) in clinical trials. In a breakout session, workshop attendees discussed necessary data elements and standards for the accurate measurement of DILI risk associated with new therapeutic agents in clinical trials. There was agreement that in order to achieve this goal the systematic acquisition of protocol-specified clinical measures and lab specimens from all study subjects is crucial. In addition, standard DILI terms that address the diverse clinical and pathologic signatures of DILI were considered essential. There was a strong consensus that clinical and lab analyses necessary for the evaluation of cases of acute liver injury should be consistent with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance on pre-marketing risk assessment of DILI in clinical trials issued in 2009. A recommendation that liver injury case review and management be guided by clinicians with hepatologic expertise was made. Of note, there was agreement that emerging DILI signals should prompt the systematic collection of candidate pharmacogenomic, proteomic and/or metabonomic biomarkers from all study subjects. The use of emerging standardized clinical terminology, CRFs and graphic tools for data review to enable harmonization across clinical trials was strongly encouraged. Many of the recommendations made in the breakout session are in alignment with those made in the other parallel sessions on methodology to assess clinical liver safety data, causality assessment for suspected DILI, and liver safety assessment in special populations (hepatitis B, C, and oncology trials). Nonetheless, a few outstanding issues remain for future consideration.