Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015.?EPoS study I randomizes 13?746 patients with low-risk adenomas (1?-?2 tubular adenomas size ?25?% villous features) to surveillance after 3, 5, and 10 years, or 5 and 10 years only. EPoS study III offers surveillance after 5 and 10 years to patients with serrated polyps ??10?mm in diameter at any location, or serrated polyps ??5?mm in diameter proximal to the splenic flexure. All polyps are removed before patients enter the trials. The primary end point is colorectal cancer incidence after 10 years. We assume a colorectal cancer risk of 1?% for patients in EPoS I, and 2?% for patients in EPoS II. Using a noninferiority hypothesis with an equivalence interval of 0.5?% for EPoS I and 0.7?% for EPoS II, the trials are 90?% powered to uncover differences larger than the equivalence intervals. For EPoS III, no power analyses have been performed. CONCLUSIONS:The present trials aim to develop evidence-based strategies for polyp surveillance, thereby maximizing effectiveness and minimizing resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02319928).

SUBMITTER: Jover R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5412707 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

Jover Rodrigo R Bretthauer Michael M Dekker Evelien E Holme Øyvind Ø Kaminski Michal F MF Løberg Magnus M Zauber Ann G AG Hernán Miguel A MA Lansdorp-Vogelaar Iris I Sunde Annike A McFadden Eleanor E Castells Antoni A Regula Jaroslaw J Quintero Enrique E Pellisé Maria M Senore Carlo C Kalager Mette M Dinis-Ribeiro Mario M Emilsson Louise L Ransohoff David F DF Hoff Geir G Adami Hans-Olov HO

Endoscopy 20160404 6

<h4>Background</h4>Current guidelines recommend surveillance colonoscopies after polyp removal depending on the number and characteristics of polyps, but there is a lack of evidence supporting the recommendations. This report outlines the rationale and design of two randomized trials and one observational study investigating evidence-based surveillance strategies following polyp removal. Study design and endpoints: The EPoS studies started to recruit patients in April 2015. EPoS study I randomiz ...[more]

PMID: 27042931

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Overtreatment of localised prostate cancer is substantial despite increased use of active surveillance. No randomised trials help define how to monitor patients or when to initiate treatment with curative intent. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:A randomised, multicentre, intervention trial designed to evaluate the safety of an MRI-based active surveillance protocol, with standardised triggers for repeated biopsies and radical treatment. The aim is to reduce overtreatment of prostate cancer. 2000 men will be randomly allocated to either surveillance according to current practice or to standardised triggers at centres in Sweden, Norway, Finland and the UK. Men diagnosed in the past 12 months with prostate cancer, ≤T2a, prostate-specific antigen (PSA) <15 ng/mL, PSA density ≤0.2 ng/mL/cc, any International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grade 1 are eligible. Men with ISUP grade 2 in <30% of cores on systematic biopsy and <10 mm cancer in one core on systematic or targeted biopsy are also eligible. Men diagnosed on systematic biopsy should have an MRI and targeted biopsies against Prostate Imaging and Reporting Data System V.2 3-5 lesions before inclusion. Identical follow-up in the two study arms: biannual PSA testing, yearly clinical examination and MRI every second year. In the experimental arm, standardised triggers based on MRI and PSA density elicit repeated biopsies. MRI and histopathological progression trigger radical treatment. Primary outcome measure is progression-free survival. Secondary outcome measures are cumulative incidence of metastatic disease, treatments with curative intent, pT3-4 at radical prostatectomy, switch to watchful waiting, prostate cancer mortality and quality of life. Inclusion started in October 2016 and in October 2018; 275 patients have been enrolled. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was obtained in each participating country. Results for the primary and secondary outcome measures will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02914873.

Project description:Background The German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) initiated large research programs to foster high quality clinical research in the academic area. These investigator initiated trials (IITs) cover important areas of medical research and often go beyond the scope of industry sponsored trials (ISTs). The purpose of this project was to understand to what extent results of randomized controlled IITs and ISTs have an impact on medical practice, measured by their availability for decisions in healthcare and their implementation in clinical practice. We aimed to determine study characteristics influencing a trial’s impact such as type of sponsor and place of conduct. In this article, we describe the rationale and design of this project and present the characteristics of the trials included in our study cohort. Methods The research impact of the following sub-cohorts was compared: German IITs (funded by DFG and BMBF or by other German non-commercial organizations), international IITs (without German contribution), German ISTs, and international ISTs. Trials included were drawn from the DFG?/BMBF-Websites, the German Clinical Trials Register, and from ClinicalTrials.gov. Research impact was measured as follows: 1) proportion of published trials, 2) time to publication, 3) proportion of publications appropriately indexed in biomedical databases, 4) proportion of openly accessible publications, 5) broadness of publication’s target group, 6) citation of publications by systematic reviews or meta-analyses, and 7) appearance of publications or citing systematic reviews or meta-analyses in clinical practice guidelines. We also aimed to identify study characteristics associated with the impact of trials. Results We included 691 trials: 120 German IITs, 200 International IITs, 171 German ISTs and 200 International ISTs. The median number of participants was 150, 30% were international trials and 70% national trials, 48% drug-trials and 52% non-drug trials. Overall, 72% of the trials had one pre-defined primary endpoint, 28% two or more (max. 36). Conclusions The results of this project deepen our understanding of the impact of biomedical research on clinical practice and healthcare policy, add important insights for the efficient allocation of scarce research resources and may facilitate providing accountability to the different stakeholders involved.

Dataset Information

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

Publications

Rationale and design of the European Polyp Surveillance (EPoS) trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure