Assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of inpatient mental health rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector (ACER): protocol.

BACKGROUND: Mental health rehabilitation services provide specialist treatment to people with particularly severe and complex problems. In 2018, the Care Quality Commission reported that over half the 4,400 mental health inpatient rehabilitation beds in England were provided by the independent sector. They raised concerns that the length of stay and cost of independent sector care was double that of the NHS and that their services tended to be provided much further from people's homes. However, there has been no research comparing the two sectors and we therefore do not know if these concerns are justified. The ACER Study (Assessing the Clinical and cost-Effectiveness of inpatient mental health Rehabilitation services provided by the NHS and independent sector) is a national programme of research in England, funded from 2021 to 2026, that aims to investigate differences in inpatient mental health rehabilitation provided by the NHS and independent sector in terms of: patient characteristics; service quality; patient, carer and staff experiences; clinical and cost effectiveness. METHODS: ACER comprises a:1) detailed survey of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services across England; 2) qualitative investigation of patient, family, staff and commissioners' experiences of the two sectors; 3) cohort study comparing clinical outcomes in the two sectors over 18 months; 4) comprehensive national comparison of inpatient service use in the two sectors, using instrumental variable analysis of routinely collected healthcare data over 18 months; 5) health economic evaluation of the relative cost-effectiveness of the two sectors. In Components 3 and 4, our primary outcome is 'successful rehabilitation' defined as a) being discharged from the inpatient rehabilitation unit without readmission and b) inpatient service use over the 18 months. DISCUSSION: The ACER study will deliver the first empirical comparison of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of NHS and independent sector inpatient mental health rehabilitation services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN17381762 retrospectively registered.

Embedding Patient Input in Outcome Measures for Long-Term Disease-Modifying Parkinson Disease Trials.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies in PD require valid and responsive primary outcome measures that are relevant to patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to select a patient-centered primary outcome measure for disease-modification trials over three or more years. METHODS: Experts in Parkinson's disease (PD), statistics, and health economics and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) representatives reviewed and discussed potential outcome measures. A larger PPIE group provided input on their key considerations for such an endpoint. Feasibility, clinimetric properties, and relevance to patients were assessed and synthesized. RESULTS: Although initial considerations favored the Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) Part III in Off, feasibility, PPIE input, and clinimetric properties supported the MDS-UPDRS Part II. However, PPIE input also highlighted the importance of nonmotor symptoms, especially in the longer term, leading to the selection of the MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score. CONCLUSIONS: The MDS-UPDRS Parts I + II sum score was chosen as the primary outcome for large 3-year disease-modification trials. © 2023 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Outcome Measures for Disease-Modifying Trials in Parkinson's Disease: Consensus Paper by the EJS ACT-PD Multi-Arm Multi-Stage Trial Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) platform trials can accelerate the identification of disease-modifying treatments for Parkinson's disease (PD) but there is no current consensus on the optimal outcome measures (OM) for this approach. OBJECTIVE: To provide an up-to-date inventory of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, and a framework for future selection of OM for such trials. METHODS: As part of the Edmond J Safra Accelerating Clinical Trials in Parkinson Disease (EJS ACT-PD) initiative, an expert group with Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) representatives' input reviewed and evaluated available evidence on OM for potential use in trials to delay progression of PD. Each OM was ranked based on aspects such as validity, sensitivity to change, participant burden and practicality for a multi-site trial. Review of evidence and expert opinion led to the present inventory. RESULTS: An extensive inventory of OM was created, divided into: general, motor and non-motor scales, diaries and fluctuation questionnaires, cognitive, disability and health-related quality of life, capability, quantitative motor, wearable and digital, combined, resource use, imaging and wet biomarkers, and milestone-based. A framework for evaluation of OM is presented to update the inventory in the future. PPIE input highlighted the need for OM which reflect their experience of disease progression and are applicable to diverse populations and disease stages. CONCLUSION: We present a range of OM, classified according to a transparent framework, to aid selection of OM for disease-modifying PD trials, whilst allowing for inclusion or re-classification of relevant OM as new evidence emerges.

Cost-effectiveness of peer-supported self-management for people discharged from a mental health crisis team: methodological challenges and recommendations.

Background: Mental health acute crisis episodes are associated with high inpatient costs. Self-management interventions may reduce readmission by enabling individuals to manage their condition. Delivery of such interventions by Peer Support Workers (PSWs) may be cost-effective. CORE, a randomized control trial of a PSW self-management intervention compared to usual care, found a significant reduction in admissions to acute mental healthcare for participants receiving the intervention. This paper aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 12 months from a mental health service perspective. Analysis methods of increasing complexity were used to account for data missingness and distribution. Methods: Participants were recruited from six crisis resolution teams in England from 12 March 2014 to 3 July 2015 (trial registration ISRCTN: 01027104). Resource use was collected from patient records at baseline and 12 months. The EQ-5D-3L was collected at baseline and 4 and 18 months, and linear interpolation was used to calculate 12-month values for quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). The primary analysis of adjusted mean incremental costs and QALYs for complete cases are calculated separately using OLS regression. Secondly, a complete-case non-parametric two-stage bootstrap (TSB) was performed. The impacts of missing data and skewed cost data were explored using multiple imputation using chained equations and general linear models, respectively. Results: Four hundred and forty-one participants were recruited to CORE; 221 randomized to the PSW intervention and 220 to usual care plus workbook. The probability that the PSW intervention was cost-effective compared with the workbook plus usual care control at 12 months varied with the method used, and ranged from 57% to 96% at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per QALY gained. Discussion: There was a minimum 57% chance that the intervention was cost-effective compared to the control using 12-month costs and QALYs. The probability varied by 40% when methods were employed to account for the relationship between costs and QALYs, but which restricted the sample to those who provided both complete cost and utility data. Caution should therefore be applied when selecting methods for the evaluation of healthcare interventions that aim to increase precision but may introduce bias if missing data are heavily unbalanced between costs and outcomes.

Group cognitive stimulation therapy versus usual care for people with intellectual disabilities and dementia (CST-IDD) in the UK: protocol for a mixed-methods feasibility randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of dementia is almost five times higher in people with intellectual disabilities compared with the general population. However, evidence-based treatments for this population are lacking, as most randomised controlled trials for dementia interventions have not included people with intellectual disabilities. Cognitive stimulation therapy (CST) has a robust evidence base in the general dementia population, consistently showing benefits to cognition, quality of life and being cost-effective. We are conducting a mixed-methods feasibility trial of group CST for people with intellectual disabilities and dementia, to determine if a future definitive randomised controlled trial is feasible. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Fifty individuals with intellectual disabilities and dementia will be randomised to either the intervention arm (14 sessions of group CST plus treatment as usual) or the control arm (treatment as usual). Randomisation will occur after informed consent has been obtained and baseline assessments completed. Each arm will have 25 participants, with the intervention arm divided into five or more CST groups with three to five participants in each. The outcomes will be feasibility of recruitment, acceptability and adherence of the intervention, suitability of study outcome measures and feasibility of collecting resource use data. Quantitative and qualitative approaches, including semistructured interviews with group participants, carers and group facilitators, will be employed to assess these outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by Essex REC (Ref: 21/EE/027) and the HRA ethical approval process through the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS ID: 306 756). We plan to publish the results in peer-reviewed journals and conferences as well as provide feedback to funders, sponsors and study participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN88614460.

Comparing biparametric to multiparametric MRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant prostate cancer in biopsy-naive men (PRIME): a prospective, international, multicentre, non-inferiority within-patient, diagnostic yield trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate MRI is a well-established tool for the diagnostic work-up for men with suspected prostate cancer (PCa). Current recommendations advocate the use of multiparametric MRI (mpMRI), which is composed of three sequences: T2-weighted sequence (T2W), diffusion-weighted sequence (DWI) and dynamic contrast-enhanced sequence (DCE). Prior studies suggest that a biparametric MRI (bpMRI) approach, omitting the DCE sequences, may not compromise clinically significant cancer detection, though there are limitations to these studies, and it is not known how this may affect treatment eligibility. A bpMRI approach will reduce scanning time, may be more cost-effective and, at a population level, will allow more men to gain access to an MRI than an mpMRI approach. METHODS: Prostate Imaging Using MRI±Contrast Enhancement (PRIME) is a prospective, international, multicentre, within-patient diagnostic yield trial assessing whether bpMRI is non-inferior to mpMRI in the diagnosis of clinically significant PCa. Patients will undergo the full mpMRI scan. Radiologists will be blinded to the DCE and will initially report the MRI using only the bpMRI (T2W and DWI) sequences. They will then be unblinded to the DCE sequence and will then re-report the MRI using the mpMRI sequences (T2W, DWI and DCE). Men with suspicious lesions on either bpMRI or mpMRI will undergo prostate biopsy. The main inclusion criteria are men with suspected PCa, with a serum PSA of ≤20 ng/mL and without prior prostate biopsy. The primary outcome is the proportion of men with clinically significant PCa detected (Gleason score ≥3+4 or Gleason grade group ≥2). A sample size of at least 500 patients is required. Key secondary outcomes include the proportion of clinically insignificant PCa detected and treatment decision. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee West Midlands, Nottingham (21/WM/0091). Results of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications. Participants and relevant patient support groups will be informed about the results of the trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04571840.

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer-metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts voted on controversial questions where high-level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. TWITTER SUMMARY: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. TAKE-HOME MESSAGE: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer is summarised here.

The value of blood-based measures of liver function and urate in lung cancer risk prediction: A cohort study and health economic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have reported associations between low-cost blood-based measurements and lung cancer but their role in risk prediction is unclear. We examined the value of expanding lung cancer risk models for targeting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), including blood measurements of liver function and urate. METHODS: We analysed a cohort of 388,199 UK Biobank participants with 1873 events and calculated the c-index and fraction of new information (FNI) for models expanded to include combinations of blood measurements, lung function (forced expiratory volume in 1 s - FEV1), alcohol status and waist circumference. We calculated the hypothetical cost per lung cancer case detected by LDCT for different scenarios using a threshold of ≥ 1.51 % risk at 6 years. RESULTS: The c-index was 0.805 (95 %CI:0.794-0.816) for the model containing conventional predictors. Expanding to include blood measurements increased the c-index to 0.815 (95 %CI: 0.804-0.826;p < 0.0001;FNI:0.06). Expanding to include FEV1, alcohol status, and waist circumference increased the c-index to 0.811 (95 %CI: 0.800-0.822;p < 0.0001;FNI: 0.04). The c-index for the fully expanded model containing all variables was 0.819 (95 %CI:0.808-0.830;p < 0.0001;FNI:0.09). Model expansion had a greater impact on the c-index and FNI for people with a history of smoking cigarettes relative to the full cohort. Compared with the conventional risk model, the expanded models reduced the number of participants meeting the criteria for LDCT screening by 15-21 %, and lung cancer cases detected by 7-8 %. The additional cost per lung cancer case detected relative to the conventional model was £ 1018 for adding blood tests and £ 9775 for the fully expanded model. CONCLUSION: Blood measurements of liver function and urate made a modest improvement to lung cancer risk prediction compared with a model containing conventional risk factors. There was no evidence that model expansion would improve the cost per lung cancer case detected in UK healthcare settings.

REFINE (REduced Frequency ImmuNE checkpoint inhibition in cancers): A multi-arm phase II basket trial testing reduced intensity immunotherapy across different cancers.

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have revolutionised treating advanced cancers. ICI are administered intravenously every 2-6 weeks for up to 2 years, until cancer progression/unacceptable toxicity. Physiological efficacy is observed at lower doses than those used as standard of care (SOC). Pharmacodynamic studies indicate sustained target occupancy, despite a pharmacological half-life of 2-3 weeks. Reducing frequency of administration may be possible without compromising outcomes. The REFINE trial aims to limit individual patient exposure to ICI whilst maintaining efficacy, with potential benefits in quality of life and reduced drug treatment/attendance costs. METHODS/DESIGN: REFINE is a randomised phase II, multi-arm, multi-stage (MAMS) adaptive basket trial investigating extended interval administration of ICIs. Eligible patients are those responding to conventionally dosed ICI at 12 weeks. In stage I, patients (n = 160 per tumour-specific cohort) will be randomly allocated (1:1) to receive maintenance ICI at SOC vs extended dose interval. REFINE is currently recruiting UK patients with locally advanced or metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who have tolerated and responded to initial nivolumab/ipilimumab, randomised to receive maintenance nivolumab SOC (480 mg 4 weekly) vs extended interval (480 mg 8 weekly). Additional tumour cohorts are planned. Subject to satisfactory outcomes (progression-free survival) stage II will investigate up to 5 different treatment intervals. Secondary outcome measures include overall survival, quality-of-life, treatment-related toxicity, mean incremental pathway costs and quality-adjusted life-years per patient. REFINE is funded by the Jon Moulton Charity Trust and Medical Research Council, sponsored by University College London (UCL), and coordinated by the MRC CTU at UCL. Trial Registration ISRCTN79455488. NCT04913025 EUDRACT #: 2021-002060-47. CTA 31330/0008/001-0001; MREC approval: 21/LO/0593. REFINE Protocol version 4.0.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/High-risk and Locally Advanced Disease, Biochemical Relapse, and Side Effects of Hormonal Treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. OBJECTIVE: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members ("panellists") who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1-3. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.

METRIC-EF: magnetic resonance enterography to predict disabling disease in newly diagnosed Crohn's disease-protocol for a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Crohn's disease (CD) is characterised by discontinuous, relapsing enteric inflammation. Instituting advanced therapies at an early stage to suppress inflammation aims to prevent future complications such as stricturing or penetrating disease, and subsequent surgical resection. Therapeutics are effective but associated with certain side-effects and relatively expensive. There is therefore an urgent need for robust methods to predict which newly diagnosed patients will develop disabling disease, to identify patients who are most likely to benefit from early, advanced therapies. We aim to determine if magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) features at diagnosis improve prediction of disabling CD within 5 years of diagnosis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We describe the protocol for a multicentre, non-randomised, single-arm, prospective study of adult patients with newly diagnosed CD. We will use patients already recruited to the METRIC study and extend their clinical follow-up, as well as a separate group of newly diagnosed patients who were not part of the METRIC trial (MRE within 3 months of diagnosis), to ensure an adequate sample size. Follow-up will extend for at least 4 years. The primary outcome is to evaluate the comparative predictive ability of prognostic models incorporating MRE severity scores (Magnetic resonance Enterography Global Score (MEGS), simplified MAgnetic Resonance Index of Activity (sMaRIA) and Lémann Index) versus models using standard characteristics alone to predict disabling CD (modified Beaugerie definition) within 5 years of new diagnosis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study protocol achieved National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (NHS REC), London-Hampstead Research Ethics Committee approval (IRAS 217422). Our findings will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN76899103.

Effectiveness of early spectacle intervention on visual outcomes in babies at risk of cerebral visual impairment: a parallel group, open-label, randomised clinical feasibility trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Hypoaccommodation is common in children born prematurely and those with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy (HIE), with the potential to affect wider learning. These children are also at risk of longer-term cerebral visual impairment. It is also well recognised that early intervention for childhood visual pathology is essential, because neuroplasticity progressively diminishes during early life. This study aims to establish the feasibility and acceptability of conducting a randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of early near vision correction with spectacles in infancy, for babies, at risk of visual dysfunction. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a parallel group, open-label, randomised controlled (feasibility) study to assess visual outcomes in children with perinatal brain injury when prescribed near vision spectacles compared with the current standard care-waiting until a problem is detected. The study hypothesis is that accommodation, and possibly other aspects of vision, may be improved by intervening earlier with near vision glasses. Eligible infants (n=75, with either HIE or <29 weeks preterm) will be recruited and randomised to one of three arms, group A (no spectacles) and two intervention groups: B1 or B2. Infants in both intervention groups will be offered glasses with +3.00 DS added to the full cycloplegic refraction and prescribed for full time wear. Group B1 will get their first visit assessment and intervention at 8 weeks corrected gestational age (B1) and B2 at 16 weeks corrected gestational age. All infants will receive a complete visual and neurodevelopmental assessment at baseline and a follow-up visit at 3 and 6 months after the first visit. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The South-Central Oxford C Research Ethics Committee has approved the study. Members of the PPI committee will give advice on dissemination of results through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and societies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14646770, NCT05048550, NIHR ref: PB-PG-0418-20006.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Major System Change in Specialist Cancer Surgery in London, England, Using Linked Patient-Level Electronic Health Records and Difference-in-Differences Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that centralising surgical treatment for some cancers can improve patient outcomes, but there is limited evidence of the impact on costs or health-related quality of life. OBJECTIVES: We report the results of a cost-utility analysis of the RESPECT-21 study using difference-in-differences, which investigated the reconfiguration of specialist surgery services for four cancers in an area of London, compared to the Rest of England (ROE). METHODS: Electronic health records data were obtained from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service for patients diagnosed with one of the four cancers of interest between 2012 and 2017. The analysis for each tumour type used a short-term decision tree followed by a 10-year Markov model with 6-monthly cycles. Costs were calculated by applying National Health Service (NHS) Reference Costs to patient-level hospital resource use and supplemented with published data. Cancer-specific preference-based health-related quality-of-life values were obtained from the literature to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Total costs and QALYs were calculated before and after the reconfiguration, in the London Cancer (LC) area and in ROE, and probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed to illustrate the uncertainty in the results. RESULTS: At a threshold of £30,000/QALY gained, LC reconfiguration of prostate cancer surgery services had a 79% probability of having been cost-effective compared to non-reconfigured services using difference-in-differences. The oesophago-gastric, bladder and renal reconfigurations had probabilities of 62%, 49% and 12%, respectively, of being cost-effective at the same threshold. Costs and QALYs per surgical patient increased over time for all cancers across both regions to varying degrees. Bladder cancer surgery had the smallest patient numbers and changes in costs, and QALYs were not significant. The largest improvement in outcomes was in renal cancer surgery in ROE, making the relative renal improvements in LC appear modest, and the probability of the LC reconfiguration having been cost-effective low. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate cancer reconfigurations had the highest probability of being cost-effective. It is not clear, however, whether the prostate results can be considered in isolation, given the reconfigurations occurred simultaneously with other system changes, and healthcare delivery in the NHS is highly networked and collaborative. Routine collection of quality-of-life measures such as the EQ-5D-5L would have improved the analysis.

Cost-utility analysis of adding abiraterone acetate plus prednisone/prednisolone to long-term hormone therapy in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer in England: Lifetime decision model based on STAMPEDE trial data.

Adding abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisolone (P) to standard of care (SOC) improves survival in newly diagnosed advanced prostate cancer (PC) patients starting hormone therapy. Our objective was to determine the value for money to the English National Health Service (NHS) of adding AAP to SOC. We used a decision analytic model to evaluate cost-effectiveness of providing AAP in the English NHS. Between 2011-2014, the STAMPEDE trial recruited 1917 men with high-risk localised, locally advanced, recurrent or metastatic PC starting first-line androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT), and they were randomised to receive SOC plus AAP, or SOC alone. Lifetime costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using STAMPEDE trial data supplemented with literature data where necessary, adjusting for baseline patient and disease characteristics. British National Formulary (BNF) prices (£98/day) were applied for AAP. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%/year. AAP was not cost-effective. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £149,748/QALY gained in the non-metastatic (M0) subgroup, with 2.4% probability of being cost-effective at NICE's £30,000/QALY threshold; and the metastatic (M1) subgroup had an ICER of £47,503/QALY gained, with 12.0% probability of being cost-effective. Scenario analysis suggested AAP could be cost-effective in M1 patients if priced below £62/day, or below £28/day in the M0 subgroup. AAP could dominate SOC in the M0 subgroup with price below £11/day. AAP is effective for non-metastatic and metastatic disease but is not cost-effective when using the BNF price. AAP currently only has UK approval for use in a subset of M1 patients. The actual price currently paid by the English NHS for abiraterone acetate is unknown. Broadening AAP's indication and having a daily cost below the thresholds described above is recommended, given AAP improves survival in both subgroups and its cost-saving potential in M0 subgroup.

Management of Patients with Advanced Prostate Cancer: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

BACKGROUND: Innovations in treatments, imaging, and molecular characterisation in advanced prostate cancer have improved outcomes, but various areas of management still lack high-level evidence to inform clinical practice. The 2021 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) addressed some of these questions to supplement guidelines that are based on level 1 evidence. OBJECTIVE: To present the voting results from APCCC 2021. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: The experts identified three major areas of controversy related to management of advanced prostate cancer: newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), the use of prostate-specific membrane antigen ligands in diagnostics and therapy, and molecular characterisation of tissue and blood. A panel of 86 international prostate cancer experts developed the programme and the consensus questions. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The panel voted publicly but anonymously on 107 pre-defined questions, which were developed by both voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The voting reflected the opinions of panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results reported in the Supplementary material. CONCLUSIONS: These voting results from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients to navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised according to patient characteristics, such as the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), comorbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations, and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic constraints. Enrolment in clinical trials should be strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2021 once again identified salient questions that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. PATIENT SUMMARY: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference is a forum for discussing current diagnosis and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. An expert panel votes on predefined questions focused on the most clinically relevant areas for treatment of advanced prostate cancer for which there are gaps in knowledge. The voting results provide a practical guide to help clinicians in discussing treatment options with patients as part of shared decision-making.

Loss associated with subtractive health service change: The case of specialist cancer centralization in England.

OBJECTIVE: Major system change can be stressful for staff involved and can result in 'subtractive change' - that is, when a part of the work environment is removed or ceases to exist. Little is known about the response to loss of activity resulting from such changes. Our aim was to understand perceptions of loss in response to centralization of cancer services in England, where 12 sites offering specialist surgery were reduced to four, and to understand the impact of leadership and management on enabling or hampering coping strategies associated with that loss. METHODS: We analysed 115 interviews with clinical, nursing and managerial staff from oesophago-gastric, prostate/bladder and renal cancer services in London and West Essex. In addition, we used 134 hours of observational data and analysis from over 100 documents to contextualize and to interpret the interview data. We performed a thematic analysis drawing on stress-coping theory and organizational change. RESULTS: Staff perceived that, during centralization, sites were devalued as the sites lost surgical activity, skills and experienced teams. Staff members believed that there were long-term implications for this loss, such as in retaining high-calibre staff, attracting trainees and maintaining autonomy. Emotional repercussions for staff included perceived loss of status and motivation. To mitigate these losses, leaders in the centralization process put in place some instrumental measures, such as joint contracting, surgical skill development opportunities and trainee rotation. However, these measures were undermined by patchy implementation and negative impacts on some individuals (e.g. increased workload or travel time). Relatively little emotional support was perceived to be offered. Leaders sometimes characterized adverse emotional reactions to the centralization as resistance, to be overcome through persuasion and appeals to the success of the new system. CONCLUSIONS: Large-scale reorganizations are likely to provoke a high degree of emotion and perceptions of loss. Resources to foster coping and resilience should be made available to all organizations within the system as they go through major change.

What Experts Think About Prostate Cancer Management During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Report from the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021.

Patients with advanced prostate cancer (APC) may be at greater risk for severe illness, hospitalisation, or death from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) due to male gender, older age, potential immunosuppressive treatments, or comorbidities. Thus, the optimal management of APC patients during the COVID-19 pandemic is complex. In October 2021, during the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2021, the 73 voting members of the panel members discussed and voted on 13 questions on this topic that could help clinicians make treatment choices during the pandemic. There was a consensus for full COVID-19 vaccination and booster injection in APC patients. Furthermore, the voting results indicate that the expert's treatment recommendations are influenced by the vaccination status: the COVID-19 pandemic altered management of APC patients for 70% of the panellists before the vaccination was available but only for 25% of panellists for fully vaccinated patients. Most experts (71%) were less likely to use docetaxel and abiraterone in unvaccinated patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. For fully vaccinated patients with high-risk localised prostate cancer, there was a consensus (77%) to follow the usual treatment schedule, whereas in unvaccinated patients, 55% of the panel members voted for deferring radiation therapy. Finally, there was a strong consensus for the use of telemedicine for monitoring APC patients. PATIENT SUMMARY: In the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2021, the panellists reached a consensus regarding the recommendation of the COVID-19 vaccine in prostate cancer patients and use of telemedicine for monitoring these patients.

"Attending to History" in Major System Change in Healthcare in England: Specialist Cancer Surgery Service Reconfiguration.

BACKGROUND: The reconfiguration of specialist hospital services, with service provision concentrated in a reduced number of sites, is one example of major system change (MSC) for which there is evidence of improved patient outcomes. This paper explores the reconfiguration of specialist oesophago-gastric (OG) cancer surgery services in a large urban area of England (Greater Manchester, GM), with a focus on the role of history in this change process and how reconfiguration was achieved after previous failed attempts. METHODS: This study draws on qualitative research from a mixed-methods evaluation of the reconfiguration of specialist cancer surgery services in GM. Forty-six interviews with relevant stakeholders were carried out, along with ~160 hours of observations at meetings and the acquisition of ~300 pertinent documents. Thematic analysis using deductive and inductive approaches was undertaken, guided by a framework of 'simple rules' for MSC. RESULTS: Through an awareness of, and attention to, history, leaders developed a change process which took into account previous unsuccessful reconfiguration attempts, enabling them to reduce the impact of potentially challenging issues. Interviewees described attending to issues involving competition between provider sites, change leadership, engagement with stakeholders, and the need for a process of change resilient to challenge. CONCLUSION: Recognition of, and response to, history, using a range of perspectives, enabled this reconfiguration. Particularly important was the way in which history influenced and informed other aspects of the change process and the influence of stakeholder power. This study provides further learning about MSC and the need for a range of perspectives to enable understanding. It shows how learning from history can be used to enable successful change.