Project description:BACKGROUND:Patients with advanced pancreatic cancer suffer from high morbidity and mortality. Specialty palliative care may improve quality of life. OBJECTIVE:Assess the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived effectiveness of early specialty physician-led palliative care for patients with advanced pancreatic cancer and their caregivers. DESIGN:A mixed-methods pilot randomized controlled trial in which patient-caregiver pairs were randomized (2:1) to receive specialty palliative care, in addition to standard oncology care versus standard oncology care alone. SETTING/SUBJECTS:At a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center in Western Pennsylvania, 30 patients with advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma and their caregivers (N?=?30), oncologists (N?=?4), and palliative care physicians (N?=?3) participated. MEASUREMENTS:Feasibility (enrollment, three-month outcome-assessment, and intervention completion rates), acceptability, and perceived effectiveness (process interviews with patients, caregivers, and physicians). RESULTS:Consent:approach rate was 49%, randomized:consent rate 55%, and three-month outcome assessment rate 75%. Two patients and three caregivers withdrew early. The three-month mortality rate was 13%. Patients attended a mean of 1.3 (standard deviation 1.1) palliative care visits during the three-month period. Positive experiences with palliative care included receiving emotional support and symptom management. Negative experiences included inconvenience, long travel times, spending too much time at the cancer center, and no perceived palliative care needs. Physicians suggested embedding palliative care within oncology clinics, tailoring services to patient needs, and facilitating face-to-face communication between oncologists and palliative physicians. CONCLUSIONS:A randomized trial of early palliative care for advanced pancreatic cancer did not achieve feasibility goals. Integrating palliative care within oncology clinics may increase acceptability and perceived effectiveness.

Project description:Introduction: Peri-operative window trials, using molecular biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for treatment response, offer investigators a uniqueopportunity to obtain intact tumor samples at 2 different time-points and thus evaluate potential biomarkers over a short period of time. Here we report results of a pilot trial designed to determine if treatment-mediated changes in gene expression can be detected after a 10-day exposure to anastrozole in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer compared to untreated controls. Methods: Paired tumor samples (biopsy and surgical) were obtained from 26 postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. Patients were assigned anastrozole (1mg/dy) for 10 days immediately prior to surgery (13 cases) or no treatment (13 controls). 502 cancer-related genes were examined by the DASL FFPE-based cDNA array (moderated t-test, p ≤ .005). Surrogate biomarkers reflecting changes in gene expression were examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (Wilcoxon rank-based test, p < .05). Results: Sufficient RNA was available from 19 paired samples (8 controls, 11 cases). There was no difference in age, tumor size, grade, or baseline biomarker expression between groups. Within each group, 18 genes, reflecting roles in proliferation, angiogenesis, and apoptosis showed differential expression over time from biopsy to surgery (p < 0.005). Dysregulation of estrogen-related genes was present only in the treated group. Comparison between groups identified 5 genes that were significantly dysregulated between controls and treated cases (BAG1/ING1/ERBB4/IFNGR1/TFDP1). Reduction in Ki-67 index was observed in 7 (54%) treated cases in 1 (7.7%) control patient. Conclusions: Short-term (10-day) exposure to anastrozole resulted in significant dysregulation of 18 out of 502 cancer-related genes, and Ki-67 was reduced in 54% of cases. However, the local effects of wound healing may represent a confounding factor in the interpretation of peri-operative window trials as exposed by the changes in gene expression and the increased Ki-67 index in the control group. Prospective, paired tumor samples (biopsy and surgical) were obtained from 26 postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. Patients were assigned anastrozole (1mg/dy) for 10 days immediately prior to surgery (13 cases) or no treatment (13 controls). 502 cancer-related genes were examined by the DASL FFPE-based cDNA array. Sufficient RNA for gene expression analysis was obtained from 19/26 (73%) FFPE paired (biopsy and surgery) samples (8 controls, 11 anastrozole-treated patients

Project description:Introduction: Peri-operative window trials, using molecular biomarkers as surrogate endpoints for treatment response, offer investigators a uniqueopportunity to obtain intact tumor samples at 2 different time-points and thus evaluate potential biomarkers over a short period of time. Here we report results of a pilot trial designed to determine if treatment-mediated changes in gene expression can be detected after a 10-day exposure to anastrozole in estrogen receptor (ER)-positive breast cancer compared to untreated controls. Methods: Paired tumor samples (biopsy and surgical) were obtained from 26 postmenopausal women with ER-positive breast cancer. Patients were assigned anastrozole (1mg/dy) for 10 days immediately prior to surgery (13 cases) or no treatment (13 controls). 502 cancer-related genes were examined by the DASL FFPE-based cDNA array (moderated t-test, p ≤ .005). Surrogate biomarkers reflecting changes in gene expression were examined by immunohistochemistry (IHC) (Wilcoxon rank-based test, p < .05). Results: Sufficient RNA was available from 19 paired samples (8 controls, 11 cases). There was no difference in age, tumor size, grade, or baseline biomarker expression between groups. Within each group, 18 genes, reflecting roles in proliferation, angiogenesis, and apoptosis showed differential expression over time from biopsy to surgery (p < 0.005). Dysregulation of estrogen-related genes was present only in the treated group. Comparison between groups identified 5 genes that were significantly dysregulated between controls and treated cases (BAG1/ING1/ERBB4/IFNGR1/TFDP1). Reduction in Ki-67 index was observed in 7 (54%) treated cases in 1 (7.7%) control patient. Conclusions: Short-term (10-day) exposure to anastrozole resulted in significant dysregulation of 18 out of 502 cancer-related genes, and Ki-67 was reduced in 54% of cases. However, the local effects of wound healing may represent a confounding factor in the interpretation of peri-operative window trials as exposed by the changes in gene expression and the increased Ki-67 index in the control group.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials management can be studied using project management theory. The CYCLE pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine the feasibility of a future rehabilitation trial of early in-bed cycling in the intensive care unit (ICU). In-bed cycling is a novel intervention, not typically available in ICUs. Implementation of this intervention requires personnel with specialized clinical expertise caring for critically ill patients and use of the in-bed cycle. Our objective was to describe the implementation and conduct of our pilot RCT using a project management approach. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed activities, timelines, and personnel involved in the trial. We organized activities into four project management phases: initiation, planning, execution, and monitoring and controlling. Data sources included Methods Centre documents used for trial coordination and conduct, and the trial data set. We report descriptive statistics as counts and proportions and also medians and quartiles, and we summarize the lessons learned. RESULTS:Seven ICUs in Canada participated in the trial. Time from research ethics board and contracts submission to first enrolment was a median (first quartile, third quartile) of 185 (146, 209) and 162 (114, 181) days, respectively. We trained 128 personnel on the CYCLE pilot RCT protocol, and 80 (63%) completed trial-related activities. Four sites required additional training after start-up due to staff turnover and leaves of absence. Over 15?months, we screened 864 patients: 256 were eligible and 66 were enrolled. Despite an 85% consent rate, 74% (190/256) of eligible patients were not randomized, largely (80% [152/190]) due to physiotherapist availability. Thirteen percent of recruitment weeks were lost due to physiotherapist staffing shortages. We highlight five key lessons learned: (1) prepare and anticipate site needs; (2) communicate regularly; (3) proactively analyse and act on process measure data; (4) develop contingency plans; (5) express appreciation to participating sites. CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis highlights the scope of relevant activities, rigorous training and monitoring, number and types of required personnel, and time required to conduct a multicentre ICU rehabilitation intervention trial. Our lessons learned can help others interested in implementing complex intervention trials, such as rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02377830 . Registered prospectively on 4 March 2015.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) preserves mobility, but few practices screen older adults for mobility impairment or counsel on PA.Design"Promoting Active Aging" (PAA) was a mixed-methods randomized-controlled pilot, to test the feasibility and acceptability of a video-based PA counseling tool and implementation into practice of two mobility assessment tools.SettingThree primary care practices affiliated with Wake Forest Baptist Health.ParticipantsAdults aged 65 years and older who presented for primary care follow-up and were willing and able to answer self-report questions and walk 4 meters (n = 59).InterventionVideo-based PA counseling intervention versus control video, "Healthy Eating."MeasurementsPotential participants completed mobility assessments: self-report (Mobility Assessment Tool-short form (MAT-sf)) and performance based (4-meter walk test). We assessed PAA's implementation-feasibility, acceptability, and value-via interviews and surveys. Effectiveness was measured via participant attendance at a PA information session.ResultsOf 92 patients approached, 89 (96.7%) agreed to mobility assessment. Eighty-nine completed MAT-sf, and 97.8% (87/89) completed 4-meter walk test. Sixty-seven (75%) met eligibility criteria, and 59 (88%) consented to be randomized either to the PA counseling intervention (Video-PA) or to active control (Video-C). Most participants viewed the walk test positively (51/59; 86.4%). Staff reported that completion of patient surveys, MAT-sf, and videos required significant staff time and support (median = 26 minutes for all), resulting in low acceptability of MAT-sf and the videos. Attendance at a PA information session did not differ by randomization group (Video-PA = 11/29 (37.9%); Video-C = 12/30 (40%); 95% confidence interval for difference in proportion = -0.29 to 0.25).ConclusionsMobility assessment, particularly a 4-meter walk test, was feasible in primary care. Tablet-based assessment (MAT-sf) and video counseling tools, selected to reduce staff effort, instead required significant time to implement. Future work to promote PA should identify effective ways to facilitate adoption of PA in sedentary older adults that do not burden staff.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Health economic evaluation findings assist stakeholders in improving the quality, availability, scalability, and sustainability of evidence-based services, and in maximizing the efficiency of service delivery. The Center for Health Economics of Treatment Interventions for Substance Use Disorders, HCV, and HIV (CHERISH) is a NIDA-funded multi-institutional center of excellence whose mission is to develop and disseminate health-economic research on healthcare utilization, health outcomes, and health-related behaviors that informs substance use disorder treatment policy, and HCV and HIV care of people who use substances. METHODS:We designed a consultation service that is free to researchers whose work aligns with CHERISH's mission. The service includes up to six hours of consulting time. After prospective consultees submit their request online, they receive a screening call from the consultation service director, who connects them with a consultant with relevant expertise. Consultees and consultants complete web-based evaluations following the consultation; consultees also complete a six-month follow-up. We report on the status of the service from its inception in July 2015 through June 2017. RESULTS:We have received 28 consultation requests (54% Early Stage Investigators, 57% MD or equivalent, 28% PhD, 61% women) on projects typically related to planning a study or grant application (93%); 71% were HIV/AIDS-related. Leading topics included cost-effectiveness (43%), statistical-analysis/econometrics (36%), cost (32%), cost-benefit (21%), and quality-of-life (18%). All consultees were satisfied with their overall experience, and felt that consultation expectations and objectives were clearly defined and the consultant's expertise was matched appropriately with their needs. Results were similar for consultants, who spent a median of 3 hours on consultations. CONCLUSIONS:There is a need for health-economic methodological guidance among substance use, HCV, and HIV researchers. Lessons learned pertain to the feasibility of service provision, the need to implement systems to measure and improve service value, and strategies for service promotion.

Project description:BackgroundPatients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned.DesignA self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation.ParticipantsForty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured.Key resultsMost (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs.ConclusionsPCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundHealth economists have shown a growing interest in deliberation and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as possible pathways to transparently integrate value judgments in cost-utility analyses. In line with these developments, this study piloted a consensus process to derive a German value set for the Short-Form Six-Dimension (SF-6D). In a conference setting, a group was tasked to deliberate on scores and weights for the SF-6D from the perspective of a self-determined and independent life.MethodsThe one-day consensus conference was based on a deliberative process in combination with the MCDA method MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique). According to MACBETH, participants were asked to qualitatively rate pairwise comparisons of SF-6D health states. The scoring within each dimension was conducted in parallel group sessions. Final agreement on the scores as well as weights for the SF-6D dimensions were derived in a subsequent plenary assembly. Results were analyzed using the software M-MACBETH and qualitative content analysis.ResultsA total of 34 participants were recruited. While each of the 6 small groups presented a consented score, the plenary assembly reached consensus on all dimensions apart from pain. Concerning dimension weights, some participants favored prioritizing pain and mental health. Others disputed that trade-offs between dimensions and thus assigning weights were not acceptable in a context where this may involve withholding care from someone. As a consequence, no consensus on a value set was reached. Participants identified the group size of the plenary session and the applied weighting procedure as main obstacles to the process.ConclusionsThis pilot study presents a consensus-based approach for valuing health-related quality of life. However, further research is needed on deliberative processes that yield quantifiable results. Future conferences should explore smaller group sizes, longer durations of the deliberative process and alternatives to the additive value function applied in MACBETH.

Dataset Information

Lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial on a home delivered meal service in advanced cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Lessons learned from a randomized controlled trial on a home delivered meal service in advanced cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure