Kurzfassung: Whole-breast radiotherapy (WBRT) is the standard treatment for breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. Evidence shows that tumour recurrences occur near the original cancer: the tumour bed. New treatment developments include increasing dose to the tumour bed during WBRT (synchronous integrated boost) and irradiating only the region around the tumour bed, for patients at high and low risk of tumour recurrence, respectively. Currently, standard imaging uses bony anatomy to ensure accurate delivery of WBRT. It is debatable whether or not more targeted treatments such as synchronous integrated boost and partial-breast radiotherapy require image-guided radiotherapy (IGRT) focusing on implanted tumour bed clips (clip-based IGRT). Objectives Primary – to compare accuracy of patient set-up using standard imaging compared with clip-based IGRT. Secondary – comparison of imaging techniques using (1) tumour bed radiotherapy safety margins, (2) volume of breast tissue irradiated around tumour bed, (3) estimated breast toxicity following development of a normal tissue control probability model and (4) time taken. Design Multicentre observational study embedded within a national randomised trial: IMPORT-HIGH (Intensity Modulated and Partial Organ Radiotherapy – HIGHer-risk patient group) testing synchronous integrated boost and using clip-based IGRT. Setting Five radiotherapy departments, participating in IMPORT-HIGH. Participants Two-hundred and eighteen patients receiving breast radiotherapy within IMPORT-HIGH. Interventions There was no direct intervention in patients’ treatment. Experimental and control intervention were clip-based IGRT and standard imaging, respectively. IMPORT-HIGH patients received clip-based IGRT as routine; standard imaging data were obtained from clip-based IGRT images. Main outcome measures Difference in (1) set-up errors, (2) safety margins, (3) volume of breast tissue irradiated, (4) breast toxicity and (5) time, between clip-based IGRT and standard imaging. Results The primary outcome of overall mean difference in clip-based IGRT and standard imaging using daily set-up errors was 2–2.6 mm ( p   〈  0.001). Heterogeneity testing between centres found a statistically significant difference in set-up errors at one centre. For four centres (179 patients), clip-based IGRT gave a mean decrease in the systematic set-up error of between 1 mm and 2 mm compared with standard imaging. Secondary outcomes were as follows: clip-based IGRT and standard imaging safety margins were less than 5 mm and 8 mm, respectively. Using clip-based IGRT, the median volume of tissue receiving 95% of prescribed boost dose decreased by 29 cm 3 (range 11–193 cm 3 ) compared with standard imaging. Difference in median time required to perform clip-based IGRT compared with standard imaging was X-ray imaging technique dependent (range 8–76 seconds). It was not possible to estimate differences in breast toxicity, the normal tissue control probability model indicated that for breast fibrosis maximum radiotherapy dose is more important than volume of tissue irradiated. Conclusions and implications for clinical practice Margins of less than 8 mm cannot be used safely without clip-based IGRT for patients receiving concomitant tumour bed boost, as there is a risk of geographical miss of the tumour bed being treated. In principle, smaller but accurately placed margins may influence local control and toxicity rates, but this needs to be evaluated from mature clinical trial data in the future. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme.

Kurzfassung: NHS expenditure has stagnated since the economic crisis of 2007, resulting in financial pressures. One response is for policy-makers to regulate use of existing health-care technologies and disinvest from inefficiently used health technologies. A key challenge to disinvestment is to identify existing health technologies with uncertain cost-effectiveness. Objectives We aimed to explore if geographical variation in procedure rates is a marker of clinical uncertainty and might be used by local commissioners to identify procedures that are potential candidates for disinvestment. We also explore obstacles and solutions to local commissioners achieving disinvestment, and patient and clinician perspectives on regulating access to procedures. Methods We used Hospital Episode Statistics to measure geographical variation in procedure rates from 2007/8 to 2011/12. Expected procedure numbers for each primary care trust (PCT) were calculated adjusting for proxies of need. Random effects Poisson regression quantified the residual inter-PCT procedure rate variability. We benchmarked local procedure rates in two PCTs against national rates. We conducted rapid systematic reviews of two high-use procedures selected by the PCTs [carpal tunnel release (CTR) and laser capsulotomy], searching bibliographical databases to identify systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted non-participant ov ert observations of commissioning meetings and semistructured interviews with stakeholders about disinvestment in general and with clinicians and patients about one disinvestment case study. Transcripts were analysed thematically using constant comparison methods derived from grounded theory. Results There was large inter-PCT variability in procedure rates for many common NHS procedures. Variation in procedure rates was highest where the diffusion or discontinuance was rapidly evolving and where substitute procedures were available, suggesting that variation is a proxy for clinical uncertainty about appropriate use. In both PCTs we identified procedures where high local use might represent an opportunity for disinvestment. However, there were barriers to achieving disinvestment in both procedure case studies. RCTs comparing CTR with conservative care indicated that surgery was clinically effective and cost-effective on average but provided limited evidence on patient subgroups to inform commissioning criteria and achieve savings. We found no RCTs of laser capsulotomy. The apparently high rate of capsulotomy was probably due to the coding inaccuracy; some savings might be achieved by greater use of outpatient procedures. Commissioning meetings were dominated by new funding requests. Benchmarking did not appear to be routinely carried out because of capacity issues and concerns about data reliability. Perceived barriers to disinvestment included lack of collaboration, central support and tools for disinvestment. Clinicians felt threshold criteria had little impact on their practice and that prior approval systems would not be cost-effective. Most patients were unaware of rationing. Conclusions Policy-makers could use geographical variation as a starting point to identify procedures where health technology reassessment or RCTs might be needed to inform policy. Commissioners can use benchmarking to identify procedures with high local use, possibly indicating overtreatment. However, coding inconsistency and limited evidence are major barriers to achieving disinvestment through benchmarking. Increased central support for commissioners to tackle disinvestment is needed, including tools, accurate data and relevant evidence. Early engagement with patients and clinicians is essential for successful local disinvestment. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Kurzfassung: There is uncertainty about the chemotherapy sensitivity of some oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancers. Multiparameter assays that measure the expression of several tumour genes simultaneously have been developed to guide the use of adjuvant chemotherapy for this breast cancer subtype. The assays provide prognostic information and have been claimed to predict chemotherapy sensitivity. There is a dearth of prospective validation studies. The Optimal Personalised Treatment of early breast cancer usIng Multiparameter Analysis preliminary study (OPTIMA prelim) is the feasibility phase of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) designed to validate the use of multiparameter assay directed chemotherapy decisions in the NHS. Objectives OPTIMA prelim was designed to establish the acceptability to patients and clinicians of randomisation to test-driven treatment assignment compared with usual care and to select an assay for study in the main RCT. Design Partially blinded RCT with adaptive design. Setting Thirty-five UK hospitals. Participants Patients aged ≥ 40 years with surgically treated ER-positive HER2-negative primary breast cancer and with 1–9 involved axillary nodes, or, if node negative, a tumour at least 30 mm in diameter. Interventions Randomisation between two treatment options. Option 1 was standard care consisting of chemotherapy followed by endocrine therapy. In option 2, an Oncotype DX ® test (Genomic Health Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA) performed on the resected tumour was used to assign patients either to standard care [if ‘recurrence score’ (RS) was 〉  25] or to endocrine therapy alone (if RS was ≤ 25). Patients allocated chemotherapy were blind to their randomisation. Main outcome measures The pre-specified success criteria were recruitment of 300 patients in no longer than 2 years and, for the final 150 patients, (1) an acceptance rate of at least 40%; (2) recruitment taking no longer than 6 months; and (3) chemotherapy starting within 6 weeks of consent in at least 85% of patients. Results Between September 2012 and 3 June 2014, 350 patients consented to join OPTIMA prelim and 313 were randomised; the final 150 patients were recruited in 6 months, of whom 92% assigned chemotherapy started treatment within 6 weeks. The acceptance rate for the 750 patients invited to participate was 47%. Twelve out of the 325 patients with data (3.7%, 95% confidence interval 1.7% to 5.8%) were deemed ineligible on central review of receptor status. Interviews with researchers and recordings of potential participant consultations made as part of the integral qualitative recruitment study provided insights into recruitment barriers and led to interventions designed to improve recruitment. Patient information was changed as the result of feedback from three patient focus groups. Additional multiparameter analysis was performed on 302 tumour samples. Although Oncotype DX, MammaPrint ® /BluePrint ® (Agendia Inc., Irvine, CA, USA), Prosigna ® (NanoString Technologies Inc., Seattle, WA, USA), IHC4, IHC4 automated quantitative immunofluorescence (AQUA ® ) [NexCourse BreastTM (Genoptix Inc. Carlsbad, CA, USA)] and MammaTyper ® (BioNTech Diagnostics GmbH, Mainz, Germany) categorised comparable numbers of tumours into low- or high-risk groups and/or equivalent molecular subtypes, there was only moderate agreement between tests at an individual tumour level (kappa ranges 0.33–0.60 and 0.39–0.55 for tests providing risks and subtypes, respectively). Health economics modelling showed the value of information to the NHS from further research into multiparameter testing is high irrespective of the test evaluated. Prosigna is currently the highest priority for further study. Conclusions OPTIMA prelim has achieved its aims of demonstrating that a large UK clinical trial of multiparameter assay-based selection of chemotherapy in hormone-sensitive early breast cancer is feasible. The economic analysis shows that a trial would be economically worthwhile for the NHS. Based on the outcome of the OPTIMA prelim, a large-scale RCT to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multiparameter assay-directed chemotherapy decisions in hormone-sensitive HER2-negative early breast would be appropriate to take place in the NHS. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN42400492. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. The Government of Ontario funded research at the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research. Robert C Stein received additional support from the NIHR University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre.

Kurzfassung: Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. Objective To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. Design Phase A – semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B – pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. Setting Usual NHS care. Participants Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. Interventions Phase A – none. Phase B – simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or ‘no dressing’. Main outcome measures Phase A – pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B – participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. Data sources Phase A – interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B – participants and HCPs in five hospitals. Results Phase A – we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted ‘dressing’ variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a ‘no dressing’ group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B – from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n  = 133; glue, n  = 129; no dressing, n  = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients’ understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test–retest and Cronbach’s alpha of 〉  0.7) and diagnostic accuracy ( c -statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments. Limitations Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. Conclusions A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4–8 weeks. Trial registration Phase A – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B – Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 23, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1).

Kurzfassung: Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among men in the UK. Prostate-specific antigen testing followed by biopsy leads to overdetection, overtreatment as well as undertreatment of the disease. Evidence of treatment effectiveness has lacked because of the paucity of randomised controlled trials comparing conventional treatments. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of conventional treatments for localised prostate cancer (active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy) in men aged 50–69 years. Design A prospective, multicentre prostate-specific antigen testing programme followed by a randomised trial of treatment, with a comprehensive cohort follow-up. Setting Prostate-specific antigen testing in primary care and treatment in nine urology departments in the UK. Participants Between 2001 and 2009, 228,966 men aged 50–69 years received an invitation to attend an appointment for information about the Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) study and a prostate-specific antigen test; 82,429 men were tested, 2664 were diagnosed with localised prostate cancer, 1643 agreed to randomisation to active monitoring ( n  = 545), radical prostatectomy ( n  = 553) or radical radiotherapy ( n  = 545) and 997 chose a treatment. Interventions The interventions were active monitoring, radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy. Trial primary outcome measure Definite or probable disease-specific mortality at the 10-year median follow-up in randomised participants. Secondary outcome measures Overall mortality, metastases, disease progression, treatment complications, resource utilisation and patient-reported outcomes. Results There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for 17 prostate cancer-specific ( p  = 0.48) and 169 all-cause ( p  = 0.87) deaths. Eight men died of prostate cancer in the active monitoring group (1.5 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.0); five died of prostate cancer in the radical prostatectomy group (0.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.4 to 2.2 per 1000 person years) and four died of prostate cancer in the radical radiotherapy group (0.7 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 0.3 to 2.0 per 1000 person years). More men developed metastases in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring, n  = 33 (6.3 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 8.8); radical prostatectomy, n  = 13 (2.4 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.4 to 4.2 per 1000 person years); and radical radiotherapy, n  = 16 (3.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 1.9 to 4.9 per 1000 person-years; p  = 0.004). There were higher rates of disease progression in the active monitoring group than in the radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy groups: active monitoring ( n  = 112; 22.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 19.0 to 27.5 per 1000 person years); radical prostatectomy ( n  = 46; 8.9 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 11.9 per 1000 person-years); and radical radiotherapy ( n  = 46; 9.0 per 1000 person-years, 95% confidence interval 6.7 to 12.0 per 1000 person years; p   〈  0.001). Radical prostatectomy had the greatest impact on sexual function/urinary continence and remained worse than radical radiotherapy and active monitoring. Radical radiotherapy’s impact on sexual function was greatest at 6 months, but recovered somewhat in the majority of participants. Sexual and urinary function gradually declined in the active monitoring group. Bowel function was worse with radical radiotherapy at 6 months, but it recovered with the exception of bloody stools. Urinary voiding and nocturia worsened in the radical radiotherapy group at 6 months but recovered. Condition-specific quality-of-life effects mirrored functional changes. No differences in anxiety/depression or generic or cancer-related quality of life were found. At the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, the probabilities that each arm was the most cost-effective option were 58% (radical radiotherapy), 32% (active monitoring) and 10% (radical prostatectomy). Limitations A single prostate-specific antigen test and transrectal ultrasound biopsies were used. There were very few non-white men in the trial. The majority of men had low- and intermediate-risk disease. Longer follow-up is needed. Conclusions At a median follow-up point of 10 years, prostate cancer-specific mortality was low, irrespective of the assigned treatment. Radical prostatectomy and radical radiotherapy reduced disease progression and metastases, but with side effects. Further work is needed to follow up participants at a median of 15 years. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN20141297. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 24, No. 37. See the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library website for further project information.

Kurzfassung: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome is an important cause of hip pain in young adults. It can be treated by arthroscopic hip surgery or with physiotherapist-led conservative care. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy with best conservative care. Design The UK FASHIoN (full trial of arthroscopic surgery for hip impingement compared with non-operative care) trial was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial that was carried out at 23 NHS hospitals. Participants Participants were included if they had femoroacetabular impingement, were aged ≥ 16 years old, had hip pain with radiographic features of cam or pincer morphology (but no osteoarthritis) and were believed to be likely to benefit from hip arthroscopy. Intervention Participants were randomly allocated (1 : 1) to receive hip arthroscopy followed by postoperative physiotherapy, or personalised hip therapy (i.e. an individualised physiotherapist-led programme of conservative care). Randomisation was stratified by impingement type and recruiting centre using a central telephone randomisation service. Outcome assessment and analysis were masked. Main outcome measure The primary outcome was hip-related quality of life, measured by the patient-reported International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) 12 months after randomisation, and analysed by intention to treat. Results Between July 2012 and July 2016, 648 eligible patients were identified and 348 participants were recruited. In total, 171 participants were allocated to receive hip arthroscopy and 177 participants were allocated to receive personalised hip therapy. Three further patients were excluded from the trial after randomisation because they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Follow-up at the primary outcome assessment was 92% ( N  = 319; hip arthroscopy, n  = 157; personalised hip therapy, n  = 162). At 12 months, mean International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33) score had improved from 39.2 (standard deviation 20.9) points to 58.8 (standard deviation 27.2) points for participants in the hip arthroscopy group, and from 35.6 (standard deviation 18.2) points to 49.7 (standard deviation 25.5) points for participants in personalised hip therapy group. In the primary analysis, the mean difference in International Hip Outcome Tool scores, adjusted for impingement type, sex, baseline International Hip Outcome Tool score and centre, was 6.8 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 12.0) points in favour of hip arthroscopy ( p  = 0.0093). This estimate of treatment effect exceeded the minimum clinically important difference (6.1 points). Five (83%) of six serious adverse events in the hip arthroscopy group were related to treatment and one serious adverse event in the personalised hip therapy group was not. Thirty-eight (24%) personalised hip therapy patients chose to have hip arthroscopy between 1 and 3 years after randomisation. Nineteen (12%) hip arthroscopy patients had a revision arthroscopy. Eleven (7%) personalised hip therapy patients and three (2%) hip arthroscopy patients had a hip replacement within 3 years. Limitations Study participants and treating clinicians were not blinded to the intervention arm. Delays were encountered in participants accessing treatment, particularly surgery. Follow-up lasted for 3 years. Conclusion Hip arthroscopy and personalised hip therapy both improved hip-related quality of life for patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome. Hip arthroscopy led to a greater improvement in quality of life than personalised hip therapy, and this difference was clinically significant at 12 months. This study does not demonstrate cost-effectiveness of hip arthroscopy compared with personalised hip therapy within the first 12 months. Further follow-up will reveal whether or not the clinical benefits of hip arthroscopy are maintained and whether or not it is cost-effective in the long term. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN64081839. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 26, No. 16. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Kurzfassung: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Patients with intermediate-risk, clinically localised disease are offered radical treatments such as surgery or radiotherapy, which can result in severe side effects. A number of alternative partial ablation (PA) technologies that may reduce treatment burden are available; however the comparative effectiveness of these techniques has never been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Objectives To assess the feasibility of a RCT of PA using high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) versus radical prostatectomy (RP) for intermediate-risk PCa and to test and optimise methods of data capture. Design We carried out a prospective, multicentre, open-label feasibility study to inform the design and conduct of a future RCT, involving a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to understand barriers to participation. Setting Five NHS hospitals in England. Participants Men with unilateral, intermediate-risk, clinically localised PCa. Interventions Radical prostatectomy compared with HIFU. Primary outcome measure The randomisation of 80 men. Secondary outcome measures Findings of the QRI and assessment of data capture methods. Results Eighty-seven patients consented to participate by 31 March 2017 and 82 men were randomised by 4 May 2017 (41 men to the RP arm and 41 to the HIFU arm). The QRI was conducted in two iterative phases: phase I identified a number of barriers to recruitment, including organisational challenges, lack of recruiter equipoise and difficulties communicating with patients about the study, and phase II comprised the development and delivery of tailored strategies to optimise recruitment, including group training, individual feedback and ‘tips’ documents. At the time of data extraction, on 10 October 2017, treatment data were available for 71 patients. Patient characteristics were similar at baseline and the rate of return of all clinical case report forms (CRFs) was 95%; the return rate of the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) questionnaire pack was 90.5%. Centres with specific long-standing expertise in offering HIFU as a routine NHS treatment option had lower recruitment rates (Basingstoke and Southampton) – with University College Hospital failing to enrol any participants – than centres offering HIFU in the trial context only. Conclusions Randomisation of men to a RCT comparing PA with radical treatments of the prostate is feasible. The QRI provided insights into the complexities of recruiting to this surgical trial and has highlighted a number of key lessons that are likely to be important if the study progresses to a main trial. A full RCT comparing clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and quality-of-life outcomes between radical treatments and PA is now warranted. Future work Men recruited to the feasibility study will be followed up for 36 months in accordance with the protocol. We will design a full RCT, taking into account the lessons learnt from this study. CRFs will be streamlined, and the length and frequency of PROMs and resource use diaries will be reviewed to reduce the burden on patients and research nurses and to optimise data completeness. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99760303. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 22, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Kurzfassung: Localised oesophageal cancer can be curatively treated with surgery (oesophagectomy) but the procedure is complex with a risk of complications, negative effects on quality of life and a recovery period of 6–9 months. Minimal-access surgery may accelerate recovery. Objectives The ROMIO (Randomised Oesophagectomy: Minimally Invasive or Open) study aimed to establish the feasibility of, and methodology for, a definitive trial comparing minimally invasive and open surgery for oesophagectomy. Objectives were to quantify the number of eligible patients in a pilot trial; develop surgical manuals as the basis for quality assurance; standardise pathological processing; establish a method to blind patients to their allocation in the first week post surgery; identify measures of postsurgical outcome of importance to patients and clinicians; and establish the main cost differences between the surgical approaches. Design Pilot parallel three-arm randomised controlled trial nested within feasibility work. Setting Two UK NHS departments of upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants Patients aged ≥ 18 years with histopathological evidence of oesophageal or oesophagogastric junctional adenocarcinoma, squamous cell cancer or high-grade dysplasia, referred for oesophagectomy or oesophagectomy following neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy. Interventions Oesophagectomy, with patients randomised to open surgery, a hybrid open chest and minimally invasive abdomen or totally minimally invasive access. Main outcome measure The primary outcome measure for the pilot trial was the number of patients recruited per month, with the main trial considered feasible if at least 2.5 patients per month were recruited. Results During 21 months of recruitment, 263 patients were assessed for eligibility; of these, 135 (51%) were found to be eligible and 104 (77%) agreed to participate, an average of five patients per month. In total, 41 patients were allocated to open surgery, 43 to the hybrid procedure and 20 to totally minimally invasive surgery. Recruitment is continuing, allowing a seamless transition into the definitive trial. Consequently, the database is unlocked at the time of writing and data presented here are for patients recruited by 31 August 2014. Random allocation achieved a good balance between the arms of the study, which, as a high proportion of patients underwent their allocated surgery (69/79, 87%), ensured a fair comparison between the interventions. Dressing patients with large bandages, covering all possible incisions, was successful in keeping patients blind while pain was assessed during the first week post surgery. Postsurgical length of stay and risk of adverse events were within the typical range for this group of patients, with one death occurring within 30 days among 76 patients. There were good completion rates for the assessment of pain at 6 days post surgery (88%) and of the patient-reported outcomes at 6 weeks post randomisation (74%). Conclusions Rapid recruitment to the pilot trial and the successful refinement of methodology indicated the feasibility of a definitive trial comparing different approaches to oesophagectomy. Although we have shown a full trial of open compared with minimally invasive oesophagectomy to be feasible, this is necessarily based on our findings from the two clinical centres that we could include in this small preliminary study. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN59036820. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 20, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Kurzfassung: Surgery for established cataract is highly cost-effective and uncontroversial, yet uncertainty remains for individuals about when to proceed and when to delay surgery during the earlier stages of cataract. Objective We aimed to improve decision-making for cataract surgery through the development of evidence-based clinical tools that provide general information and personalised risk/benefit information. Design We used a mixed methodology consisting of four work packages. Work package 1 involved the development and psychometric validation of a brief, patient self-reported measure of visual difficulty from cataract and its relief from surgery, named Cataract Patient-Reported Outcome Measure, five items (Cat-PROM5). Work package 2 involved the review and refinement of risk models for adverse surgical events (posterior capsule rupture and visual acuity loss related to cataract surgery). Work package 3 involved the development of prediction models for the Cat-PROM5-based self-reported outcomes from a cohort study of 1500 patients; assessment of the validity of preference-based health economic indices for cataract surgery and the calibration of these to Cat-PROM5; assessment of patients’ and health-care professionals’ views on risk–benefit presentation formats, the perceived usefulness of Cat-PROM5, the value of personalised risk–benefit information, high-value information items and shared decision-making; development of cataract decision aid frequently asked questions, incorporation of personalised estimates of risks and benefits; and development of a cataract decision quality measure to assess the quality of decision-making. Work package 4 involved a mixed-methods feasibility study for a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the use of the cataract decision aid and a qualitative study of discordant or mismatching perceptions of outcome between patients and health-care professionals. Setting Four English NHS recruitment centres were involved: Bristol (lead centre), Brighton, Gloucestershire and Torbay. Multicentre NHS cataract surgery data were obtained from the National Ophthalmology Database. Participants Work package 1 – participants ( n  = 822) were from all four centres. Work package 2 – electronic medical record data were taken from the National Ophthalmology Database (final set 〉  1M operations). Work package 3 – cohort study participants were from Bristol ( n  = 1200) and Gloucestershire ( n  = 300); qualitative and development work was undertaken with patients and health-care professionals from all four centres. Work package 4 – Bristol, Brighton and Torbay participated in the recruitment of patients ( n  = 42) for the feasibility trial and recruitment of health-care professionals for the qualitative elements. Interventions For the feasibility trial, the intervention was the use of the cataract decision aid, incorporating frequently asked questions and personalised estimations of both adverse outcomes and self-reported benefit. Main outcome measures There was a range of quantitative and qualitative outcome measures: questionnaire psychometric performance metrics, risk indicators of adverse surgical events and visual outcome, predictors of self-reported outcome following cataract surgery, patient and health-care practitioner views, health economic calibration measures and randomised controlled trial feasibility measures. Data sources The data sources were patient self-reported questionnaire responses, study clinical data collection forms, recorded interviews with patients and health-care professionals, and anonymised National Ophthalmology Database data. Results Work package 1 – Cat-PROM5 was developed and validated with excellent to good psychometric properties (Rasch reliability 0.9, intraclass correlation repeatability 0.9, unidimensionality with residual eigenvalues ≤ 1.5) and excellent responsiveness to surgical intervention (Cohen delta –1.45). Work package 2 – earlier risk models for posterior capsule rupture and visual acuity loss were broadly affirmed ( C -statistic for posterior capsule rupture 0.64; visual acuity loss 0.71). Work package 3 – the Cat-PROM5-based self-reported outcome regression models were derived based on 1181 participants with complete data ( R 2  ≈ 30% for each). Of the four preference-based health economic indices assessed, two demonstrated reasonable performance. Cat-PROM5 was successfully calibrated to health economic indices; adjusted limited dependent variable mixture models offered good to excellent fit (root-mean-square error 0.10–0.16). The personalised quantitative risk information was generally perceived as beneficial. A cataract decision aid and cataract decision quality measure were successfully developed based on the views of patients and health-care professionals. Work package 4 – data completeness was good for the feasibility study primary and secondary variables both before and after intervention/surgery (data completeness range 100–88%). Considering ability to recruit, the sample size required, instrumentation and availability of necessary health economic data, a fully powered randomised controlled trial (patients, n  = 800, effect size 0.2 standard deviations, power 80%; p  = 0.05) of the cataract decision aid would be feasible following psychometric refinement of the primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure). The cataract decision aid was generally well-received by patients and health-care professionals, with cautions raised regarding perceived time and workload barriers. Discordant outcomes mostly related to patient dissatisfaction, with no clinical problem found. Limitations The National Ophthalmology Database data are expected to include some errors (mitigated by large multicentre data aggregations). The feasibility randomised controlled trial primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure) displayed psychometric imperfections requiring refinement. The clinical occurrence of discordant outcomes is uncommon and the study team experienced difficulty identifying patients in this situation. Future work Future work could include regular review of the risk models for adverse outcomes to ensure currency, and the technical precision of complex-numbers analysis of refractive outcome to invite opportunities to improve post-operative spectacle-free vision. In addition, a fully powered randomised controlled trial of the cataract decision aid would be feasible, following psychometric refinement of the primary outcome (the cataract decision quality measure); this would clarify its potential role in routine service delivery. Conclusions In this research programme, evidence-based clinical tools have been successfully developed to improve pre-operative decision-making in cataract surgery. These include a psychometrically robust, patient-reported outcome measure (Cat-PROM5); prediction models for patient self-reported outcomes using Cat-PROM5; prediction models for clinically adverse surgical events and adverse visual acuity outcomes; and a cataract decision aid with relevant general information and personalised risk/benefit predictions. In addition, the successful mapping of Cat-PROM5 to existing health economic indices was achieved and the performances of indices were assessed in patients undergoing cataract surgery. A future full-powered randomised controlled trial of the cataract decision aid would be feasible (patients, n  = 800, effect size 0.2 standard deviations, power 80%; p  = 0.05). Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN11309852. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research ; Vol. 10, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Kurzfassung: Active surveillance [(AS), sometimes called active monitoring (AM)],is a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended management option for men with clinically localised prostate cancer (PCa). It aims to target radical treatment only to those who would benefit most. Little consensus exists nationally or internationally about safe and effective protocols for AM/AS or triggers that indicate if or when men should move to radical treatment. Objective The aims of this project were to review how prostate-specific antigen (PSA) has been used in AM/AS programmes; to develop and test the validity of a new model for predicting future PSA levels; to develop an instrument, based on PSA, that would be acceptable and effective for men and clinicians to use in clinical practice; and to design a robust study to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the instrument. Methods A systematic review was conducted to investigate how PSA is currently used to monitor men in worldwide AM/AS studies. A model for PSA change with age was developed using Prostate testing for cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) data and validated using data from two PSA-era cohorts and two pre-PSA-era cohorts. The model was used to derive 95% PSA reference ranges (PSARRs) across ages. These reference ranges were used to predict the onset of metastases or death from PCa in one of the pre-PSA-era cohorts. PSARRs were incorporated into an active monitoring system (AMS) and demonstrated to 18 clinicians and 20 men with PCa from four NHS trusts. Qualitative interviews investigated patients’ and clinicians’ views about current AM/AS protocols and the acceptability of the AMS within current practice. Results The systematic review found that the most commonly used triggers for clinical review of PCa were PSA doubling time (PSADT) 〈  3 years or PSA velocity (PSAv) 〉  1 ng/ml/year. The model for PSA change (developed using ProtecT study data) predicted PSA values in AM/AS cohorts within 2 ng/ml of observed PSA in up to 79% of men. Comparing the three PSA markers, there was no clear optimal approach to alerting men to worsening cancer. The PSARR and PSADT markers improved the model c -statistic for predicting death from PCa by 0.11 (21%) and 0.13 (25%), respectively, compared with using diagnostic information alone [PSA, age, tumour stage (T-stage)]. Interviews revealed variation in clinical practice regarding eligibility and follow-up protocols. Patients and clinicians perceive current AM/AS practice to be framed by uncertainty, ranging from uncertainty about selection of eligible AM/AS candidates to uncertainty about optimum follow-up protocols and thresholds for clinical review/radical treatment. Patients and clinicians generally responded positively to the AMS. The impact of the AMS on clinicians’ decision-making was limited by a lack of data linking AMS values to long-term outcomes and by current clinical practice, which viewed PSA measures as one of several tools guiding clinical decisions in AM/AS. Patients reported that they would look to clinicians, rather than to a tool, to direct decision-making. Limitations The quantitative findings were severely hampered by a lack of clinical outcomes or events (such as metastases). The qualitative findings were limited through reliance on participants’ reports of practices and recollections of events rather than observations of actual interactions. Conclusions Patients and clinicians found that the instrument provided additional, potentially helpful, information but were uncertain about the current usefulness of the risk model we developed for routine management. Comparison of the model with other monitoring strategies will require clinical outcomes from ongoing AM/AS studies. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.