The experience of interval scans for adults living with primary malignant brain tumors.

PURPOSE: People with primary malignant brain tumors (PMBT) undergo anti-tumor treatment and are followed up with MRI interval scans. There are potential burdens and benefits to interval scanning, yet high-quality evidence to suggest whether scans are beneficial or alter outcomes of importance for patients is lacking. We aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of how adults living with PMBTs experience and cope with interval scanning. METHODS: Twelve patients diagnosed with WHO grade III or IV PMBT from two sites in the UK took part. Using a semi-structured interview guide, they were asked about their experiences of interval scans. A constructivist grounded theory approach was used to analyze data. RESULTS: Although most participants found interval scans uncomfortable, they accepted that scans were something that they had to do and were using various coping methods to get through the MRI scan. All participants said that the wait between their scan and results was the most difficult part. Despite the difficulties they experienced, all participants said that they would rather have interval scans than wait for a change in their symptoms. Most of the time, scans provided relief, gave participants some certainty in an uncertain situation, and a short-term sense of control over their lives. CONCLUSION: The present study shows that interval scanning is important and highly valued by patients living with PMBT. Although interval scans are anxiety provoking, they appear to help people living with PMBT cope with the uncertainty of their condition.

The impact of registration of clinical trials units: the UK experience.

BACKGROUND: Over the last decade, the United Kingdom has invested significant resources in its clinical trial infrastructure. Clinical research networks have been formed, and some general oversight functions for clinical research have been centralised. One of the initiatives is a registration programme for Clinical Trials Units involved in the coordination of clinical trials. An international review panel of experts in clinical trials has been convened for three reviews over time, reviewing applications from Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The process benefited from earlier work by the National Cancer Research Institute that developed accreditation procedures for trials units involved in cancer trials. This article describes the experience with the three reviews of UK Clinical Trials Units which submitted applications. PURPOSE: This article describes the evolution and impact of this registration process from the perspective of the current international review panel members, some of whom have served on all reviews, including two done by the National Cancer Research Institute. PROCESS: Applications for registration were invited from all active, non-commercial Clinical Trials Units in the United Kingdom. The invitations were issued in 2007, 2009 and 2012, and applicants were asked to describe their expertise and staffing levels in specific areas. To ensure that the reviews were as objective as possible, a description of expected core competencies was developed and applicants were asked to document their compliance with meeting these. The review panel assessed each Clinical Trials Unit against the competencies. The Clinical Trials Unit registration process has evolved over time with each successive review benefiting from what was learned in earlier ones. RESULTS: The review panel has seen positive changes over time, including an increase in the number of units applying, a greater awareness on the part of host institutions about the trials activity within their organisations, more widespread development of Standard Operating Procedures in key areas and improvements in information technology systems used to host clinical trials databases. Key funders are awarding funds only to registered units, and host institutions are implementing procedures and structures to ensure improved communication between all parties involved in trials within their organisation. CONCLUSION: The registration process developed in the United Kingdom has helped to ensure that trials units in the United Kingdom are compliant with regulatory standards and can meet acceptable standards of quality in their conduct of clinical trials. There is an increased awareness among funders, host institutions and Clinical Trials Units themselves of the required competencies, and communication between all those involved in trials has increased. The registration process is an effective and financially viable way of ensuring that objective standards are met at a national level.