Explore the vast range of titles available.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the tissue regenerating and biomechanical properties of processed eggshell membrane powder (PEP) for use in 3D-scaffolds. PEP is a low-cost, natural biomaterial with beneficial bioactive properties. Most importantly, this material is available as a by-product of the chicken egg processing (breaking) industry on a large scale, and it could have potential as a low-cost ingredient for therapeutic scaffolds. Scaffolds consisting of collagen alone and collagen combined with PEP were produced and analyzed for their mechanical properties and the growth of primary fibroblasts and skeletal muscle cells. Mechanical testing revealed that a PEP/collagen-based scaffold increased the mechanical hardness of the scaffold compared with a pure collagen scaffold. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) demonstrated an interconnected porous structure for both scaffolds, and that the PEP was evenly distributed in dense clusters within the scaffold. Fibroblast and skeletal muscle cells attached, were viable and able to proliferate for 1 and 2 weeks in both scaffolds. The cell types retained their phenotypic properties expressing phenotype markers of fibroblasts (TE7, alpha-smooth muscle actin) and skeletal muscle (CD56) visualized by immunostaining. mRNA expression of the skeletal muscle markers myoD, myogenin, and fibroblasts marker (SMA) together with extracellular matrix components supported viable phenotypes and matrix-producing cells in both types of scaffolds. In conclusion, PEP is a promising low-cost, natural biomaterial for use in combination with collagen as a scaffold for 3D-tissue engineering to improve the mechanical properties and promote cellular adhesion and growth of regenerating cells.

Background There is a need for evidence of the clinical effectiveness of minimally invasive surgery for the treatment of esophageal cancer, but randomized controlled trials in surgery are often difficult to conduct. The ROMIO (Randomized Open or Minimally Invasive Oesophagectomy) study will establish the feasibility of a main trial which will examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive and open surgical procedures for the treatment of esophageal cancer. Methods/Design A pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT), in two centers (University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust) will examine numbers of incident and eligible patients who consent to participate in the ROMIO study. Interventions will include esophagectomy by: (1) open gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, (2) laparoscopic gastric mobilization and right thoracotomy, and (3) totally minimally invasive surgery (in the Bristol center only). The primary outcomes of the feasibility study will be measures of recruitment, successful development of methods to monitor quality of surgery and fidelity to a surgical protocol, and development of a core outcome set to evaluate esophageal cancer surgery. The study will test patient-reported outcomes measures to assess recovery, methods to blind participants, assessments of surgical morbidity, and methods to capture cost and resource use. ROMIO will integrate methods to monitor and improve recruitment using audio recordings of consultations between recruiting surgeons, nurses, and patients to provide feedback for recruiting staff. Discussion The ROMIO study aims to establish efficient methods to undertake a main trial of minimally invasive surgery versus open surgery for esophageal cancer. Trial registration The pilot trial has Current Controlled Trials registration number ISRCTN59036820 (25/02/2013) at http://www.controlled-trials.com ; the ROMIO trial record at that site gives a link to the original version of the study protocol.

IntroductionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) in surgery are frequently criticised because surgeon expertise and standards of surgery are not considered or accounted for during study design. This is particularly true in pragmatic trials (which typically involve multiple centres and surgeons and are based in ‘real world’ settings), compared with explanatory trials (which are smaller and more tightly controlled).ObjectiveThis protocol describes a process to develop and test quality assurance (QA) measures for use within a predominantly pragmatic surgical RCT comparing minimally invasive and open techniques for oesophageal cancer (the NIHR ROMIO study). It builds on methods initiated in the ROMIO pilot RCT.Methods and analysisWe have identified three distinct types of QA measure: (i) entry criteria for surgeons, through assessment of operative videos, (ii) standardisation of operative techniques (by establishing minimum key procedural phases) and (iii) monitoring of surgeons during the trial, using intraoperative photography to document key procedural phases and standardising the pathological assessment of specimens. The QA measures will be adapted from the pilot study and tested iteratively, and the video and photo assessment tools will be tested for reliability and validity.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained (NRES Committee South West—Frenchay, 25 April 2016, ref: 16/SW/0098). Results of the QA development study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration number ISRCTN59036820, ISRCTN10386621.

Background Core outcome set (COS) developers increasingly employ Delphi surveys to elicit stakeholders’ opinions of which outcomes to measure and report in trials of a particular condition or intervention. Research outside of Delphi surveys and COS development demonstrates that question order can affect response rates and lead to ‘context effects’, where prior questions determine an item’s meaning and influence responses. This study examined the impact of question order within a Delphi survey for a COS for oesophageal cancer surgery. Methods A randomised controlled trial was nested within the Delphi survey. Patients and health professionals were randomised to receive a survey including clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the PRO section appeared first or last. Participants rated (1–9) the importance of 68 items for inclusion in a COS (ratings 7–9 considered ‘essential’). Analyses considered the impact of question order on: (1) survey response rates; (2) participants’ responses; and (3) items retained at end of the survey. Results In total, 116 patients and 71 professionals returned completed surveys. Question order did not affect response rates among patients, but fewer professionals responded when clinical items appeared first (difference = 31.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 13.6–48.9%, P  = 0.001). Question order led to different context effects within patients and professionals. While patients rated clinical items highly, irrespective of question order, more PROs were rated essential when appearing last rather than first (difference = 23.7%, 95% CI = 10.5–40.8%). Among professionals, the greatest impact was on clinical items; a higher percentage rated essential when appearing last (difference = 11.6%, 95% CI = 0.0–23.3%). An interaction between question order and the percentage of PRO/clinical items rated essential was observed for patients ( P  = 0.025) but not professionals ( P  = 0.357). Items retained for further consideration at the end of the survey were dependent on question order, with discordant items (retained by one question order group only) observed in patients (18/68 [26%]) and professionals (20/68 [29%]). Conclusions In the development of a COS, participants’ ratings of potential outcomes within a Delphi survey depend on the context (order) in which the outcomes are asked, consequently impacting on the final COS. Initial piloting is recommended with consideration of the randomisation of items in the survey to reduce potential bias. Trial registration The randomised controlled trial reported within this paper was nested within the development of a core outcome set to investigate processes in core outcome set development. Outcomes were not health-related and trial registration was not therefore applicable.

Background: Discovery and validation of new antibody tractable targets is critical for the development of new antibody therapeutics to address unmet needs in oncology. Methods: A highly invasive clonal variant of the MDA-MB-435S cell line was used to generate monoclonal antibodies (MAbs), which were screened for anti-invasive activity against aggressive cancer cells in vitro . The molecular target of selected inhibitory MAb 9E1 was identified using immunoprecipitation/liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The potential anti-tumour effects of MAb 9E1 were investigated in vitro together with immunohistochemical analysis of the 9E1 target antigen in normal and cancer tissues. Results: MAb 9E1 significantly decreases invasion in pancreatic, lung squamous and breast cancer cells and silencing of its target antigen, which was revealed as AnxA6, leads to markedly reduced invasive capacity of pancreatic and lung squamous cancer in vitro . IHC using MAb 9E1 revealed that AnxA6 exhibits a high prevalence of membrane immunoreactivity across aggressive tumour types with restricted expression observed in the majority of normal tissues. In pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, high AnxA6 IHC score correlated with the presence of tumour budding at the invasive front of tumours ( P =0.082), the presence of perineural invasion ( P = < 0.0001) and showed a weak correlation with reduced survival ( P =0.2242). Conclusions: This study highlights the use of phenotypic hybridoma screening as an effective strategy to select a novel function-blocking MAb, 9E1 with anti-cancer activity in vitro . Moreover, through characterisation of the 9E1 target antigen, AnxA6, our findings support further investigation of AnxA6 as a potential candidate target for antibody-mediated inhibition of pancreatic cancer.

IntroductionSurgery (oesophagectomy), with neoadjuvant chemo(radio)therapy, is the main curative treatment for patients with oesophageal cancer. Several surgical approaches can be used to remove an oesophageal tumour. The Ivor Lewis (two-phase procedure) is usually used in the UK. This can be performed as an open oesophagectomy (OO), a laparoscopically assisted oesophagectomy (LAO) or a totally minimally invasive oesophagectomy (TMIO). All three are performed in the National Health Service, with LAO and OO the most common. However, there is limited evidence about which surgical approach is best for patients in terms of survival and postoperative health-related quality of life.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a UK multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare LAO with OO in adult patients with oesophageal cancer. The primary outcome is patient-reported physical function at 3 and 6 weeks postoperatively and 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include: postoperative complications, survival, disease recurrence, other measures of quality of life, spirometry, success of patient blinding and quality assurance measures. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed comparing LAO with OO. We will embed a randomised substudy to evaluate the safety and evolution of the TMIO procedure and a qualitative recruitment intervention to optimise patient recruitment. We will analyse the primary outcome using a multi-level regression model. Patients will be monitored for up to 3 years after their surgery.Ethics and disseminationThis study received ethical approval from the South-West Franchay Research Ethics Committee. We will submit the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberISRCTN10386621.

To explore how the concept of randomization is described by clinicians and understood by patients in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and how it contributes to patient understanding and recruitment. Qualitative analysis of 73 audio recordings of recruitment consultations from five, multicenter, UK-based RCTs with identified or anticipated recruitment difficulties. One in 10 appointments did not include any mention of randomization. Most included a description of the method or process of allocation. Descriptions often made reference to gambling-related metaphors or similes, or referred to allocation by a computer. Where reference was made to a computer, some patients assumed that they would receive the treatment that was “best for them”. Descriptions of the rationale for randomization were rarely present and often only came about as a consequence of patients questioning the reason for a random allocation. The methods and processes of randomization were usually described by recruiters, but often without clarity, which could lead to patient misunderstanding. The rationale for randomization was rarely mentioned. Recruiters should avoid problematic gambling metaphors and illusions of agency in their explanations and instead focus on clearer descriptions of the rationale and method of randomization to ensure patients are better informed about randomization and RCT participation. •Practices commonly used to describe randomisation in RCT recruitment could confuse patients.•Patients found it difficult to comprehend gambling-related metaphors of randomisation.•Computer-agency descriptions led to patients believing they would receive the best treatment.

Outcomes for treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer traditionally include procedure-related morbidity and mortality and long-term survival. Patient-reported outcomes, such as quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction measures, add to standard end points, but associations between these factors are not fully understood. This study examined how patient satisfaction related to surgical morbidity, treatment type, and QOL outcomes after inpatient treatment for upper gastrointestinal cancer. Consecutive patients who had completed treatment in one unit were invited to participate in this study and complete the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-PATSAT32 and QLQ-C30 questionnaires within 2 months of discharge. Regression analyses examined relationships between satisfaction and surgical morbidity (major complications and type of treatment) and between satisfaction and QOL variables, adjusting for age and sex. During the study, 181 patients were treated, 162 were eligible, and 139 returned both questionnaires (response rate, 86%). Of the study sample, the treatment outcome was potential cure in 105 (67 esophagectomy and 38 D2 gastrectomy), and 34 received palliative treatment. Thirty-seven patients (27%) had major complications. Patients who received palliative treatment reported satisfaction and QOL scores similar to those of patients who received curative treatment. However, patients who experienced major morbidity reported significantly worse QOL than those without morbidity (P<.01). Satisfaction scores were the same in patients with or without complications. There were no associations between satisfaction and QOL scores (r<.34). Patient satisfaction with hospital care is independent of morbidity, treatment type, and QOL outcomes. It may be used to feed back information to providers of health care to improve patients' experiences of treatment.

In the linked study (doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2664 ), Grant et al carried out a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial of minimal access surgery (laparoscopic fundoplication) compared with optimised medical management (standard proton pump inhibition) for chronic gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD).

To evaluate the impact of the QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) on recruitment in challenging randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have applied the intervention. The QRI aims to understand recruitment difficulties and then implements “QRI actions” to address these as recruitment proceeds. A mixed-methods study, comprising (1) before-and-after comparisons of recruitment rates and the numbers of patients approached and (2) qualitative case studies, including documentary analysis and interviews with RCT investigators. Five UK-based publicly funded RCTs were included in the evaluation. All recruited to target. Randomized controlled trial 2 and RCT 5 both received up-front prerecruitment training before the intervention was applied. Randomized controlled trial 2 did not encounter recruitment issues and recruited above target from its outset. Recruitment difficulties, particularly communication issues, were identified and addressed through QRI actions in RCTs 1, 3, 4, and 5. Randomization rates significantly improved after QRI action in RCTs 1, 3, and 4. Quintet Recruitment Intervention actions addressed issues with approaching eligible patients in RCTs 3 and 5, which both saw significant increases in the number of patients approached. Trial investigators reported that the QRI had unearthed issues they had been unaware of and reportedly changed their practices after QRI action. There is promising evidence to suggest that the QRI can support recruitment to difficult RCTs. This needs to be substantiated with future controlled evaluations.