Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy: a phase II randomised trial of re-irradiation and chemotherapy in patients with recurrent glioblastoma (BRIOChe) - protocol for a multi-centre open-label randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult primary malignant brain tumour. The condition is incurable and, despite aggressive treatment at first presentation, almost all tumours recur after a median of 7 months. The aim of treatment at recurrence is to prolong survival and maintain health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chemotherapy is typically employed for recurrent GBM, often using nitrosourea-based regimens. However, efficacy is limited, with reported median survivals between 5 and 9 months from recurrence. Although less commonly used in the UK, there is growing evidence that re-irradiation may produce survival outcomes at least similar to nitrosourea-based chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty as to the optimum approach and there is a paucity of available data, especially with regards to HRQoL. Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy (BRIOChe) aims to assess re-irradiation, as an acceptable treatment option for recurrent IDH-wild-type GBM. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: BRIOChe is a phase II, multi-centre, open-label, randomised trial in patients with recurrent GBM. The trial uses Sargent's three-outcome design and will recruit approximately 55 participants from 10 to 15 UK radiotherapy sites, allocated (2:1) to receive re-irradiation (35 Gy in 10 daily fractions) or nitrosourea-based chemotherapy (up to six, 6-weekly cycles). The primary endpoint is overall survival rate for re-irradiation patients at 9 months. There will be no formal statistical comparison between treatment arms for the decision-making primary analysis. The chemotherapy arm will be used for calibration purposes, to collect concurrent data to aid interpretation of results. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, dexamethasone requirement, anti-epileptic drug requirement, radiological response, treatment compliance, acute and late toxicities, progression-free survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BRIOChe obtained ethical approval from Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference no. 20/NI/0070). Final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to the ICMJE guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN60524.

Cost-Effectiveness of eRAPID eHealth Intervention for Symptom Management During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: A randomized controlled trial of online symptom monitoring during chemotherapy with electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) system found improved symptom control and patient self-efficacy, without increasing hospital admissions and visits. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the eRAPID eHealth intervention compared with usual care for patients receiving systemic treatment for colorectal, breast, or gynecologic cancers in the United Kingdom. METHODS: An embedded economic evaluation was conducted alongside the trial evaluating the effectiveness of eRAPID from health care provider and societal perspectives. Costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) of patients were compared over 18 weeks of the trial. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were estimated and compared with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness threshold. Uncertainty around the ICER was explored using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. Follow-up data were collected 12-months after random assignment for a subset of the study sample to conduct exploratory analysis of potential longer-term effects. RESULTS: Patients in the eRAPID group had the highest QALY gain and lowest costs over 18 weeks. Although differences were small and not statistically significant, eRAPID had a 55%-58% probability of being more cost-effective than usual care. Patient out-of-pocket costs were lower in the eRAPID group, indicating eRAPID may help patients access support needed within the National Health Service. Exploratory 12-months analysis showed small differences in costs and QALYs, with higher QALY gains in the eRAPID group but also higher costs. Exploratory subgroup analysis by disease status indicated that the eRAPID intervention was cost-effective for patients with early-stage cancers but not for patients with metastatic disease. CONCLUSION: Despite small differences in QALYs and costs, the analyses show potential cost-effectiveness of online symptom monitoring, when added to usual care, particularly during adjuvant systemic treatment for early-stage cancers.

Online Symptom Monitoring During Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Randomized Pilot Trial of the eRAPID Intervention.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D). RESULTS: From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer (APHRODITE): protocol for a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16158514.

A feasibility study of hyoscine butylbromide (buscopan) to improve image quality of cone beam computed tomography during abdominal/pelvic Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) is used for image guidance of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR), but it is susceptible to bowel motion artefacts. This trial evaluated the impact of hyoscine butylbromide (buscopan) on CBCT image quality and its feasibility within a radiotherapy workflow. METHODS: A single-centre feasibility trial (ISRCTN24362767) was performed in patients treated with SABR for abdominal/pelvic oligorecurrence. Buscopan was administered to separate cohorts by intramuscular (IM) or intravenous (i.v.) injection on alternate fractions, providing within-patient control data. 4-point Likert scales were used to assess overall image quality (ranging from excellent to impossible to use) and bowel motion artefact (ranging from none to severe). Feasibility was determined by patient/radiographer questionnaires and toxicity assessment. Descriptive statistics are presented. RESULTS: 16 patients were treated (8 by IM and 8 by i.v. buscopan). The percentage of images of excellent quality with/without buscopan was 47 vs 29% for IM buscopan and 65 vs 40% for i.v. buscopan. The percentage of images with no bowel motion artefact with/without buscopan was 24.6 vs 8.9% for IM buscopan and 25.8 vs 7% for i.v. buscopan. Four patients (25%) reported dry mouth. 14 patients (93%) would accept buscopan as routine. 11 radiographers (92%) reported no delay in treatments. CONCLUSIONS: A trend towards improved image quality/reduced bowel motion artefact was observed with IM/i.v. buscopan. Buscopan was well tolerated with limited impact on workflow. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This is the first trial of buscopan within a radiotherapy workflow. It demonstrated a trend to improved image quality and feasibility of use.

Phase III Randomized Controlled Trial of eRAPID: eHealth Intervention During Chemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online eHealth system for patients to self-report symptoms during cancer treatment. It provides automated severity-dependent patient advice guiding self-management or medical contact and displays the reports in electronic patient records. This trial evaluated the impact of eRAPID on symptom control, healthcare use, patient self-efficacy, and quality of life (QOL) in a patient population treated predominantly with curative intent. METHODS: Patients with colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers commencing chemotherapy were randomly assigned to usual care (UC) or the addition of eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 18 weeks). Primary outcome was symptom control (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Physical Well-Being subscale [FACT-PWB]) assessed at 6, 12, and 18 weeks. Secondary outcomes were processes of care (admissions or chemotherapy delivery), patient self-efficacy, and global quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, EQ5D-VAS, and EORTC QLQ-C30 summary score). Multivariable mixed-effects repeated-measures models were used for analyses. Trial registration: ISRCTN88520246. RESULTS: Participants were 508 consenting patients (73.6% of 690 eligible) and 55 health professionals. eRAPID compared to UC showed improved physical well-being at 6 (P = .028) and 12 (P = .039) weeks and no difference at 18 weeks (primary end point) (P = .69). Fewer eRAPID patients (47%) had clinically meaningful physical well-being deterioration than UC (56%) at 12 weeks. Subgroup analysis found benefit in the nonmetastatic group at 6 weeks (P = .0426), but not in metastatic disease. There were no differences for admissions or chemotherapy delivery. At 18 weeks, patients using eRAPID reported better self-efficacy (P = .007) and better health on EQ5D-VAS (P = .009). Average patient compliance with weekly symptom reporting was 64.7%. Patient adherence was associated with clinician's data use and improved FACT-PWB at 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Real-time monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes improved physical well-being (6 and 12 weeks) and self-efficacy (18 weeks) in a patient population predominantly treated with curative intent, without increasing hospital workload.

Fact vs. Affect in the Telephone Game: All Levels of Surprise Are Retold With High Accuracy, Even Independently of Facts.

When people retell stories, what guides their retelling? Most previous research on story retelling and story comprehension has focused on information accuracy as the key measure of stability in transmission. This paper suggests that there is a second, affective, dimension that provides stability for retellings, namely the audience affect of surprise. In a large-sample study with multiple iterations of retellings, we found evidence that people are quite accurate in preserving all degrees of surprisingness in serial reproduction - even when the event that produced the surprisingness in the original story is dropped or changed. Thus, we propose that the preservation of affect is an implicit goal of retelling: merely do retellers not recall highly surprising events better, but rather they register all levels of surprisingness precisely and aim to surprise their implied audience to same degree. This study used 2,389 participants. Significance Statement: Story retelling is a process whereby cultural information is transmitted horizontally across social networks and vertically down generations. For the most part, retelling research has focused on the relevance and stability of factual information, "who did what, where, when, and why"; comparatively little is known about the transmission of affective information. We suggest that affect can serve as a second axis of stability for retelling, partially independent from factual information. In serial reproduction tasks modeled after the telephone game, we find that surprisingness of stories is well preserved across retellings - even when the facts and events of the story are not. The findings are significant for the communication of information, and thereby also the stability and transformation of culture in general.