Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.

BACKGROUND: Use of electronic methods to support informed consent ('eConsent') is increasingly popular in clinical research. This commentary reports the approach taken to implement electronic consent methods and subsequent experiences from a range of studies at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit (CTRU), a large clinical trials unit in the UK. MAIN TEXT: We implemented a remote eConsent process using the REDCap platform. The process can be used in trials of investigational medicinal products and other intervention types or research designs. Our standard eConsent system focuses on documenting informed consent, with other aspects of consent (e.g. providing information to potential participants and a recruiter discussing the study with each potential participant) occurring outside the system, though trial teams can use electronic methods for these activities where they have ethical approval. Our overall process includes a verbal consent step prior to confidential information being entered onto REDCap and an identity verification step in line with regulator guidance. We considered the regulatory requirements around the system's generation of source documents, how to ensure data protection standards were upheld and how to monitor informed consent within the system. We present four eConsent case studies from the CTRU: two randomised clinical trials and two other health research studies. These illustrate the ways eConsent can be implemented, and lessons learned, including about differences in uptake. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully implemented a remote eConsent process at the CTRU across multiple studies. Our case studies highlight benefits of study participants being able to give consent without having to be present at the study site. This may better align with patient preferences and trial site needs and therefore improve recruitment and resilience against external shocks (such as pandemics). Variation in uptake of eConsent may be influenced more by site-level factors than patient preferences, which may not align well with the aspiration towards patient-centred research. Our current process has some limitations, including the provision of all consent-related text in more than one language, and scalability of implementing more than one consent form version at a time. We consider how enhancements in CTRU processes, or external developments, might affect our approach.

Development and validation of a patient reported outcome measure for health-related quality of life for locally recurrent rectal cancer: a multicentre, three-phase, mixed-methods, cohort study.

Background: Locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) occurs in 5-10% of patients following previous treatment of rectal cancer. It has a significant impact on patients' overall health-related quality of life (HrQoL). Major advances in surgical treatments have led to improved survival outcomes. However, due to the lack of disease-specific, validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), HrQoL, is variably assessed. The aim of this study is to develop a disease-specific, psychometrically robust, and validated PROM for use in LRRC. Methods: A multicentre, three phase, mixed-methods, observational study was performed across five centres in the UK and Australia. Adult patients (>18 years old) with an existing or previously treated LRRC within the last 2 years were eligible to participate. Patients completed the proposed LRRC-QoL, EORTC QLQ-CR29, and FACT-C questionnaires. Scale structure was analysed using multi-trait scaling analysis and exploratory factor analysis, reliability was assessed using Cronbach's and the intra-class coefficient, convergent validity was assessed using Pearson's correlation, and known-groups comparison was assessed using the student t-test or ANOVA. Findings: Between 01/03/2015 and 31/12/2019, 117 patients with a diagnosis of LRRC were recruited. The final scale structure of the LRRC-QoL consisted of nine multi-item scales (healthcare services, psychological impact, pain, urostomy-related symptoms, lower limb symptoms, stoma, sexual function, sexual interest, and urinary symptoms) and three single items. Cronbach's Alpha and Intraclass correlation values of >0.7 across the majority of scales supported overall reliability. Convergent validity was demonstrated between LRRC-QoL Pain Scale and FACT-C Physical Well Being scale (r = 0.528, p < 0.001), LRRC-QoL Psychological Impact scale with EORTC QLQ CR29 Body Image (r = 0.680, p < 0.001) and the FACT-C Emotional Well Being scale (r = 0.326, p < 0.001), and LRRC-QoL Urinary Symptoms scale with EORTC QLQ-CR29 Urinary Frequency scale (r = 0.310, p < 0.001). Known-groups validity was demonstrated for gender, disease location, treatment intent, and re-recurrent disease. Interpretation: The LRRC-QoL has demonstrated robust psychometric properties and can be used in clinical and academic practice. Funding: None.

Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Locally Recurrent Rectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The availability of high-quality patient-reported outcome (PRO) data is crucial to guiding shared decision-making in the context of locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC), where potential treatment benefits must be balanced against the impact of both the disease and treatment on PROs, such as quality of life. This review aimed to identify the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) currently being reported in LRRC and to appraise the methodological quality of studies using these measures. METHODS: PubMed, Embase and CINAHL databases were searched, including studies published up until 14th September 2022. Studies in adults with LRRC reporting PROMS as a primary or secondary outcome measure were included. Data were extracted concerning the methodological quality of the reporting of PROMs using criteria informed by the CONSORT-PRO checklist and the psychometric properties of the PROMs identified using the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies including 1914 patients with LRRC were identified. None of the studies included in the review met all eleven criteria for the quality of reporting of PROMs. Seventeen PROMs and two clinician-reported outcome measures were identified, none of which have been validated for use in patients with LRRC. CONCLUSIONS: None of the PROMs which are currently being used to report PROs in LRRC have been validated for use in this cohort of patients. Future studies in this disease area should focus on utilising PROMs that have undergone a robust development process including patients with LRRC, to produce data which is high quality, accurate and relevant.

Short-term outcomes of health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent rectal cancer: multicentre, international, cross-sectional cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Overall survival rates for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) continue to improve but the evidence concerning health-related quality of life (HrQoL) remains limited. The aim of this study was to describe the short-term HrQoL differences between patients undergoing surgical and palliative treatments for LRRC. METHODS: An international, cross-sectional, observational study was undertaken at five centres across the UK and Australia. HrQoL in LRRC patients was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-CR29 and functional assessment of cancer therapy - colorectal (FACT-C) questionnaires and subgroups (curative versus palliative) were compared. Secondary analyses included the comparison of HrQoL according to the margin status, location of disease and type of treatment. Scores were interpreted using minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and Cohen effect size (ES). RESULTS: Out of 350 eligible patients, a total of 95 patients participated, 74.0 (78.0 per cent) treated with curative intent and 21.0 (22.0 per cent) with palliative intent. Median time between LRRC diagnosis and HrQoL assessments was 4 months. Higher overall FACT-C scores denoting better HrQoL were observed in patients undergoing curative treatment, demonstrating a MCID with a mean difference of 18.5 (P < 0.001) and an ES of 0.6. Patients undergoing surgery had higher scores denoting a higher burden of symptoms for the EORTC CR29 domains of urinary frequency (P < 0.001, ES 0.3) and frequency of defaecation (P < 0.001, ES 0.4). Higher overall FACT-C scores were observed in patients who underwent an R0 resection versus an R1 resection (P = 0.051, ES 0.6). EORTC CR29 scores identified worse body image in patients with posterior/central disease (P = 0.021). Patients undergoing palliative chemoradiation reported worse HrQoL scores with a higher symptom burden on the frequency of defaecation scale compared with palliative chemotherapy (P = 0.041). CONCLUSION: Several differences in short-term HrQoL outcomes between patients undergoing curative and palliative treatment for LRRC were documented. Patients undergoing curative surgery reported better overall HrQoL and a higher burden of pelvic symptoms.

Utilising quality of life outcome trajectories to aid patient decision making in pelvic exenteration.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making in pelvic exenteration is a complex and detailed process, which must balance clinical, oncological and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), whilst addressing and valuing the patient priorities. Communicating patient-centred information on quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes is an essential component of this. The aim of this systematic review was to understand the impact of pelvic exenteration on QoL PROs over a longitudinal period and to develop QoL trajectories to support decision-making in this context. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases were searched between 1st January 2000 and 20th December 2021 Studies reporting on PROs, including QoL, in adults undergoing pelvic exenteration were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the ROBINS-I assessment tool. Data from studies reporting QoL using the same outcome measure at the same candidate timepoint were extracted and synthesised to develop a longitudinal QoL trajectory. RESULTS: Fourteen studies consisting of 1370 patients were included in this review. QoL trajectories were constructed in the domains of physical function, psychological function, role function, sexual function, body image and general and specific symptoms. Decision-making was only assessed by one study, with satisfaction with decision-making reported to be high. There is an initial decline in QoL scores in the domains of physical function, role function, sexual function, body image and general health and symptoms deteriorating during the first 3-6 months post-operatively. Psychological function is the only QoL domain that remains stable throughout the post-operative period. CONCLUSION: Mapping QoL trajectories provides a visual representation of post-operative progress, highlighting the enduring impact of pelvic exenteration on patients and can be used to inform pre-operative shared decision-making.

Closed incision negative pressure wound therapy is associated with reduced surgical site infection after emergency laparotomy: A propensity matched-cohort analysis.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection contributes to a significant proportion of postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Surgical site infections cause significant patient burden, increase duration of stay, and have economic implications. Closed incision negative pressure therapy has been shown to reduce surgical site infection rates in patients undergoing elective laparotomy; however, there is limited evidence for their use in the emergency setting. This study aims to compare rates of surgical site infection between patients receiving closed incision negative pressure therapy and standard surgical dressing after emergency laparotomy through a propensity matched analysis. METHODS: A registry-based, prospective cohort study was undertaken using data from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit database at our center. The primary outcome measure was surgical site infection as defined by the Centers for Disease Control criteria. Secondary outcomes included 30-day postoperative morbidity and grade, duration of stay, 30-day mortality, and readmission rates. A propensity-score matching was performed in a 1:1 ratio to mitigate for selection bias. RESULTS: A total of 1,484 patients were identified from the National Emergency Laparotomy Audit data set, and propensity-score matching resulted in 2 equally matched cohorts with 237 patients in each arm. The rate of surgical site infection was significantly lower in the closed incision negative pressure therapy cohort (16.9% vs 33.8%, P < .001). There were no overall differences in 30-day morbidity, Clavien-Dindo grade, Comprehensive Complication Index severity, length of hospital stay, reoperation rates, and 30-day mortality between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic closed incision negative pressure therapy in emergency laparotomy patients is associated with a reduction in surgical site infection rates.