RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Despite the importance of chemotherapy in the treatment of early stage triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), no one optimal regimen has been identified. We conducted a pilot trial comparing outcomes for the three most commonly used chemotherapy regimens to assess the feasibility of conducting a larger definitive trial. METHODS: Using integrated consent, newly diagnosed TNBC patients were randomised to one of three standard regimens: dose-dense doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then paclitaxel, doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide then weekly paclitaxel or 5-FU-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide then docetaxel. Feasibility endpoints included; physician engagement, accrual rates, physician compliance and patient satisfaction with the integrated consent model. Our anticipated pilot trial sample size was 35 randomised patients in one year. RESULTS: Between August 30th, 2016 and January 31st 2017, 2 patients met eligibility and were randomised. A survey of 10 participating oncologists was performed to identify potential strategies to enhance accrual. Most investigators (9/10) believed that the best regimen for TNBC was unknown, and 4/10 felt this was a pressing clinical question. Physicians' responses suggested that poor accrual was due to: a lack of interest in some study arms as oncologists already had a preferred regimen (4/10) and concerns about trial demands in busy clinics (3/10). The pilot feasibility endpoints were not met and the study was closed. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initial interest in the trial question and multiple investigators agreeing to approach patients, this trial failed to meet feasibility endpoints. The reasons for poor accrual were multiple and require further evaluation if this important patient-centred question is to be answered. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02688803.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Cognitive impairment is a core clinical feature of traumatic brain injury (TBI). After TBI, cognition is a key determinant of post-injury productivity, outcome, and quality of life. As a final common pathway of diverse molecular and microstructural TBI mechanisms, cognition is an ideal endpoint in clinical trials involving many candidate drugs and nonpharmacological interventions. Cognition can be reliably measured with performance-based neuropsychological tests that have greater granularity than crude rating scales, such as the Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended, which remain the standard for clinical trials. Remarkably, however, there is no well-defined, widely accepted, and validated cognition endpoint for TBI clinical trials. A single cognition endpoint that has excellent measurement precision across a wide functional range and is sensitive to the detection of small improvements (and declines) in cognitive functioning would enhance the power and precision of TBI clinical trials and accelerate drug development research. We outline methodologies for deriving a cognition composite score and a research program for validation. Finally, we discuss regulatory issues and the limitations of a cognition endpoint.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

In recent years, many new, effective therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) have become available and are widely used, yet the long-term prognosis for patients with PAH remains poor. In the absence of a cure, physicians' expectations of PAH-specific therapies are to: 1) improve patients' symptoms and functional capacity; 2) slow disease progression; and 3) improve survival. However, patients with PAH may prioritise other more tangible needs, such as improvements in their ability to carry out their daily tasks and increase their quality of life. Patients with PAH have also called out for social and emotional support from their physicians, caregivers, families and patient associations. Therefore, it is necessary that clinical trials of PAH-specific treatments include end-points that are meaningful to both patients and physicians, and that a multidisciplinary approach to the management of patients with PAH takes into consideration the broader aspects of patients' and caregivers' needs and wishes beyond simple physiological measurements.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Many clinical trials use composite end points to reduce sample size, but the relative importance of each individual end point within the composite may differ between patients and researchers. METHODS AND RESULTS: We asked 785 cardiovascular patients and 164 clinical trial authors to assign 25 "spending weights" across 5 common adverse events comprising composite end points in cardiovascular trials: death, myocardial infarction, stroke, coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for angina. We then calculated end point ratios for each participant's ratings of each nonfatal end point relative to death. Whereas patients assigned an average weight of 5 to death, equal or greater weight was assigned to myocardial infarction (mean ratio, 1.12) and stroke (ratio, 1.08). In contrast, clinical trialists were much more concerned about death (average weight, 8) than myocardial infarction (ratio, 0.63) or stroke (ratio, 0.53). Both patients and trialists considered revascularization (ratio, 0.48 and 0.20, respectively) and hospitalization (ratio, 0.28 and 0.13, respectively) as substantially less severe than death. Differences between patient and trialist end point weights persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics (P<0.001 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinical trialists did not weigh individual components of a composite end point equally. Whereas trialists are most concerned about avoiding death, patients place equal or greater importance on reducing myocardial infarction or stroke. Both groups considered revascularization and hospitalization as substantially less severe. These findings suggest that equal weights in a composite clinical end point do not accurately reflect the preferences of either patients or trialists.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Having a sense of security about the availability of care is important for cancer patients and their families. OBJECTIVES: To develop a scale for the general population to evaluate feelings of support and security regarding cancer care, and to identify factors associated with a sense of security. METHODS: A cross-sectional anonymous questionnaire was administered to 8000 subjects in four areas of Japan. Sense of security was measured using five statements and using a seven-point Likert scale: "If I get cancer 1) I would feel secure in receiving cancer treatment, 2) my pain would be well relieved, 3) medical staff will adequately respond to my concerns and pain, 4) I would feel secure as a variety of medical care services are available, and 5) I would feel secure in receiving care at home." We performed an exploratory factor analysis as well as uni- and multivariate analyses to examine factors associated with such a sense of security. RESULTS: The five items regarding sense of security were aggregated into one factor, and Cronbach's α was 0.91. In the Yamagata area where palliative care services were not available, the sense of security was significantly lower than in the other three regions. Female gender (P=0.035), older age (P<0.001), and having cancer (P<0.001) were significantly associated with a strong sense of security. CONCLUSION: A new scale that evaluates sense of security with regard to cancer care was developed. Future studies should examine whether establishing a regional health care system that provides quality palliative care could improve the sense of security of the general population.

Asunto(s)