Explore the vast range of titles available.

IntroductionThe incidence of anal carcinoma is increasing, with the current gold standard treatment being chemoradiotherapy. There is currently a wide range in the radiotherapy dose used internationally which may lead to overtreatment of early-stage disease and potential undertreatment of locally advanced disease.PLATO is an integrated umbrella trial protocol which consists of three trials focused on assessing risk-adapted use of adjuvant low-dose chemoradiotherapy in anal margin tumours (ACT3), reduced-dose chemoradiotherapy in early anal carcinoma (ACT4) and dose-escalated chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced anal carcinoma (ACT5), given with standard concurrent chemotherapy.Methods and analysisThe primary endpoints of PLATO are locoregional failure (LRF)-free rate for ACT3 and ACT4 and LRF-free survival for ACT5. Secondary objectives include acute and late toxicities, colostomy-free survival and patient-reported outcome measures. ACT3 will recruit 90 participants: participants with removed anal tumours with margins ≤1 mm will receive lower dose chemoradiotherapy, while participants with anal tumours with margins >1 mm will be observed. ACT4 will recruit 162 participants, randomised on a 1:2 basis to receive either standard-dose intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in combination with chemotherapy or reduced-dose IMRT in combination with chemotherapy. ACT5 will recruit 459 participants, randomised on a 1:1:1 basis to receive either standard-dose IMRT in combination with chemotherapy, or one of two increased-dose experimental arms of IMRT with synchronous integrated boost in combination with chemotherapy.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by Yorkshire & The Humber – Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 16/YH/0157, IRAS: 204585), July 2016. Results will be disseminated via national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journal articles and social media. A plain English report will be shared with the study participants, patients’ organisations and media.Trial registration numberISRCTN88455282.

Localised squamous cell carcinoma of the anus is treated with radical chemoradiotherapy. Cure rates are high, but treatment can result in substantial acute and long-term morbidity. We aimed to assess whether lower dose chemoradiotherapy maintains high local control rates in patients with early-stage disease, with the secondary aim of reducing toxicity. ACT4 is a phase 2, prospective, multicentre, open-label, two-arm non-comparative, randomised, controlled trial, investigating reduced-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy (rd-IMRT: 41·4 Gy in 23 fractions) in patients with early-stage anal cancer; T1–2 (≤4 cm) N0–NxM0. Eligible patients were at least 16 years of age, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–1. The primary outcome is 3-year loco-regional failure rates. Patients were randomly assigned 1:2 (with stratification by T stage, N stage, gender, HIV status, and randomising site) to standard-dose IMRT (sd-IMRT: 50·4 Gy in 28 fractions) or rd-IMRT with concurrent mitomycin and capecitabine chemotherapy. Here, we report the pre-planned, modified intention-to-treat analysis of secondary endpoints 6 months after treatment end—complete clinical response, compliance, patient-reported outcomes (EORTC QLQ-C30 and ANL27), and safety data. The trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN88455282) and is ongoing but no longer recruiting. 163 patients were recruited from 28 UK tertiary centres between April 24, 2017, and Dec 1, 2020. 160 patients were included in the primary analysis (sd-IMRT n=55; dr-IMRT n=105). Data on ethnicity were not collected. The median patient age was 66 years (IQR 58–72 years); 117 (73%) were female and 43 (27%) male; and 129 (94%) of 138 evaluable samples were p16 positive. Complete clinical responses at 6 months were 87% (46 of 53) for sd-IMRT and 92% (89 of 97) for rd-IMRT. Radiotherapy interruptions of 3 days or more occurred in 14 (26%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and 16 (15%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT. Chemotherapy modifications occurred in 27 (49%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and 39 (37%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT. Grade 3 or worse acute toxicity was reported in 25 (46%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and 37 (35%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were radiation dermatitis (seven [13%] of 55 in sd-IMRT and ten [10%] of 105 in rd-IMRT), and diarrhoea (four [7%] of 55 in sd-IMRT and nine [9%] of 105 in rd-IMRT). Serious adverse events occurred in eight (15%) of 55 patients in sd-IMRT and ten (10%) of 105 patients in rd-IMRT. Patient-reported outcomes for most issues deteriorated at the end of treatment and resolved to baseline by 6 weeks in both groups. Poorer sexual function for men and women was observed at 6 months following sd-IMRT. Good 6-month complete clinical responses rates were seen in both groups. Early results suggest rd-IMRT is well tolerated with oncological outcomes maintained. 3-year locoregional failure rates are awaited. Cancer Research UK and Stand Up to Cancer.

Introduction In the United Kingdom, community pharmacists (CPs) are increasingly being used to provide supplemental care for patients with specific conditions while the NHS is under pressure from declining GP numbers alongside a rising demand for services. CPs are ideally placed to contribute to early diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC) through extended services, especially amongst deprived areas where access is higher across all deprivation deciles in urban areas. However, they need to be embedded within integrated pathways with clear lines of communication and co‐operation between CPs and other healthcare professionals. There is not yet a clear understanding of the challenges and barriers to this integration, or the best way forward to expand CP services to include earlier CRC diagnosis. The present study aimed to co‐produce a set of practice guidelines and research recommendations about how community pharmacy can facilitate early CRC diagnosis. Methods We ran a series of three co‐production workshops across two sites (six total) in London and Newcastle (2023–2024). Nominal Group Technique was chosen to structure each co‐production session and provided the basis of our workshop guide. Workshops were audio recorded and transcribed for qualitative analysis using both a framework approach and an inductive content analysis, which is the focus of this paper. Results The salient issues CP staff face include assessing individual risk, incorporating additional services into existing workloads and financial constraints, advertising these services effectively, better use of physical space to allay CP users' privacy concerns, and finding ways better with other healthcare providers. Conclusion Expanding CP services to include screening efforts for CRC is achievable in the short term through practical actions. Key recommendations include addressing privacy concerns for pharmacy customers when discussing CRC symptoms, better utilising and expanding digital communication tools to facilitate closer working relationships between CPs and other healthcare professionals, and providing adequate incentives, screening and support materials to CPs, including FIT kits. Patient or Public Contribution PPIE input was central throughout all stages of this study including study conception via our public co‐applicant (L. B.), methodology and study conduct. We held meetings of both a patient advisory group and a steering committee of academics and PPIE representatives throughout the project. Our steering committee held two meetings, once at the onset of study development, and again prior to our final dissemination workshop. This consisted of nine people, one of whom was a patient representative. Our patient advisory group met twice during our project, comprised of ten people, five of whom were patient representatives along with five members of the research team. This group met to review our process after completion of the first workshop at each site, and then again after completion of all workshops to plan our final consolidation meeting. Each workshop was also facilitated by our public co‐applicant and, in some cases, other patient representatives, who met regularly with other facilitators during the organising and running of each workshop. Members of our PPIE group contributed to the paper write up as co‐authors and led on the creation of study dissemination materials, including a video podcast and website.

ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment.DesignA single-stage phase II trial.SettingSouth Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.ParticipantsIndividuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study.InterventionConsenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled.Primary outcome measureThe number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment.Secondary outcome measuresBarriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs’ evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis.ResultsOf those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload.ConclusionsPN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population.Trial registration number ISRCTN13314752; Results.

Background The NHS Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme offers men and women aged 55 years a once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), a test that can help reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the benefits of BSS are contingent on uptake. This National Institute for Health Research-funded single-stage phase II trial will test the feasibility of using patient navigation (PN), an intervention that offers support to patients to overcome barriers to healthcare, to increase BSS uptake within a socially deprived area of England. Methods/design All individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust during the 6-month recruitment period will be invited to take part in the study. Consenting participants will be randomised to receive PN or usual care in a 2:1 ratio. PN involves non-attenders receiving a phone call from a Specialist Screening Practitioner (SSP) who will elicit reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical, and emotional support as needed. If requested by the patient, another appointment for BSS will then be arranged. We anticipate 30 % of participants will be non-attenders. Using A'Hern single-stage design, with 20 % significance level and 80 % power, at least 35 participants who receive PN need to subsequently attend for PN to be considered worthy of further investigation in a definitive trial. The primary outcome measure will be the number of participants in the PN group who re-book and attend their BSS appointment. A qualitative analysis of the PN transcripts, and interviews with the SSPs, will also be conducted, alongside a quantitative analysis of completed patient-reported experience questionnaires. An economic analysis will calculate the costs of delivering PN. Discussion This feasibility study will be instrumental in deciding whether to conduct the first definitive trial of PN in BSS in England. If PN is subsequently shown to be cost-effective at increasing uptake of BSS, NHS policies could be modified to implement PN as a standard service. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN13314752 Keywords: Patient navigation, Bowel scope screening, Colorectal cancer, Non-attenders

Background The NHS Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme offers men and women aged 55 years a once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), a test that can help reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. However, the benefits of BSS are contingent on uptake. This National Institute for Health Research-funded single-stage phase II trial will test the feasibility of using patient navigation (PN), an intervention that offers support to patients to overcome barriers to healthcare, to increase BSS uptake within a socially deprived area of England. Methods/design All individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust during the 6-month recruitment period will be invited to take part in the study. Consenting participants will be randomised to receive PN or usual care in a 2:1 ratio. PN involves non-attenders receiving a phone call from a Specialist Screening Practitioner (SSP) who will elicit reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical, and emotional support as needed. If requested by the patient, another appointment for BSS will then be arranged. We anticipate 30 % of participants will be non-attenders. Using A’Hern single-stage design, with 20 % significance level and 80 % power, at least 35 participants who receive PN need to subsequently attend for PN to be considered worthy of further investigation in a definitive trial. The primary outcome measure will be the number of participants in the PN group who re-book and attend their BSS appointment. A qualitative analysis of the PN transcripts, and interviews with the SSPs, will also be conducted, alongside a quantitative analysis of completed patient-reported experience questionnaires. An economic analysis will calculate the costs of delivering PN. Discussion This feasibility study will be instrumental in deciding whether to conduct the first definitive trial of PN in BSS in England. If PN is subsequently shown to be cost-effective at increasing uptake of BSS, NHS policies could be modified to implement PN as a standard service. The results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and at scientific conferences. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number, ISRCTN13314752