Guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols: the SPIRIT-Path extension.

The 2013 SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) Statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the minimum content to be included in a clinical trial protocol. Assessment of biospecimens is often required for trial eligibility or as part of an outcome evaluation, and precision molecular approaches are increasingly used in trial design. However, cellular and molecular pathology practices within trials have not been codified or formalised. We developed international consensus reporting guidelines for cellular and molecular pathology content in clinical trial protocols (the SPIRIT-Path extension) using an international Delphi process, which assesses candidate items generated from a previous systematic review, followed by an expert consensus meeting. 74 individuals from five continents responded, including clinicians, statisticians, laboratory scientists, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, and regulators. The SPIRIT-Path guidelines recommend 14 additional items (seven extensions to the SPIRIT checklist and seven elaborations) that should be addressed in trial protocols containing pathology content, alongside the SPIRIT 2013 Statement items. SPIRIT-Path recommends that protocols should document the individuals, processes, and standards for all cellular and molecular pathology components of the trial, including all stages of the specimen pathway and any digital pathology methods, with specific consideration of the value of trial data and biological tissues for additional translational studies.

Recommendations for cellular and molecular pathology input into clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-aggregation.

The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology-related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE-GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation - Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta-aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full-text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology-related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology-related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology-related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.

Prevalence of, and predictors of, bile acid diarrhea in outpatients with chronic diarrhea: A follow-up study.

BACKGROUND: 23-seleno-25-homo-tauro-cholic acid (SeHCAT) scanning to rule out bile acid diarrhea (BAD) in patients with chronic diarrhea has a high yield. Our previous study showed that patients with terminal ileal (TI) Crohn's disease, TI resection, or cholecystectomy were highly likely to have an abnormal scan. As a result, we encouraged clinicians to use a therapeutic trial of a bile acid sequestrant in these patients, instead of scanning. This may have reduced diagnostic yield of the test, so we examined this issue, as well as factors predicting an abnormal scan, in a large cohort of patients referred subsequently. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 1,071 consecutive patients with chronic diarrhea undergoing SeHCAT scanning at Leeds Teaching Hospitals Trust from 2012 to 2016. We reviewed electronic patient records to obtain information on presenting gastrointestinal symptoms and any proposed risk factors for BAD. BAD was categorized according to subtype and severity. KEY RESULTS: As expected, indications for scanning changed between 2012 and 2016, with a significant reduction in referrals with TI Crohn's disease or resection year-on-year (P < 0.001). Despite this, 457 (42.7%) patients had BAD and there was no downward trend in yield of SeHCAT during the 5 year period (P = 0.39). Overall, 51.6% had type II BAD, 36.1% type III, and 12.3% type I. BAD was mild in 31.7%, moderate in 34.4%, and severe in 33.9%. In total, 653 (61.0%) patients had no known risk factors, other than chronic diarrhea, but 233 (35.7%) of these individuals had BAD, and in 143 (61.4%), this was moderate or severe. CONCLUSIONS AND INFERENCES: Despite reduced referrals for SeHCAT scanning in those with clear risk factors for BAD, the yield remained > 40%. One-third of those without known risk factors had BAD.