Explore the vast range of titles available.

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of sequential or simultaneous telomerase vaccination (GV1001) in combination with chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer. TeloVac was a three-group, open-label, randomised phase 3 trial. We recruited patients from 51 UK hospitals. Eligible patients were treatment naive, aged older than 18 years, with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0–2. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive either chemotherapy alone, chemotherapy with sequential GV1001 (sequential chemoimmunotherapy), or chemotherapy with concurrent GV1001 (concurrent chemoimmunotherapy). Treatments were allocated with equal probability by means of computer-generated random permuted blocks of sizes 3 and 6 in equal proportion. Chemotherapy included six cycles of gemcitabine (1000 mg/m2, 30 min intravenous infusion, at days 1, 8, and 15) and capecitabine (830 mg/m2 orally twice daily for 21 days, repeated every 28 days). Sequential chemoimmunotherapy included two cycles of combination chemotherapy, then an intradermal lower abdominal injection of granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF; 75 μg) and GV1001 (0·56 mg; days 1, 3, and 5, once on weeks 2–4, and six monthly thereafter). Concurrent chemoimmunotherapy included giving GV1001 from the start of chemotherapy with GM-CSF as an adjuvant. The primary endpoint was overall survival; analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN4382138. The first patient was randomly assigned to treatment on March 29, 2007, and the trial was terminated on March 27, 2011. Of 1572 patients screened, 1062 were randomly assigned to treatment (358 patients were allocated to the chemotherapy group, 350 to the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 354 to the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). We recorded 772 deaths; the 290 patients still alive were followed up for a median of 6·0 months (IQR 2·4–12·2). Median overall survival was not significantly different in the chemotherapy group than in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group (7·9 months [95% CI 7·1–8·8] vs 6·9 months [6·4–7·6]; hazard ratio [HR] 1·19, 98·25% CI 0·97–1·48, p=0·05), or in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group (8·4 months [95% CI 7·3–9·7], HR 1·05, 98·25% CI 0·85–1·29, p=0·64; overall log-rank of χ22df=4·3; p=0·11). The commonest grade 3–4 toxic effects were neutropenia (68 [19%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 58 [17%] patients in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 79 [22%] patients in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group; fatigue (27 [8%] in the chemotherapy group, 35 [10%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 44 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group); and pain (34 [9%] patients in the chemotherapy group, 39 [11%] in the sequential chemoimmunotherapy group, and 41 [12%] in the concurrent chemoimmunotherapy group). Adding GV1001 vaccination to chemotherapy did not improve overall survival. New strategies to enhance the immune response effect of telomerase vaccination during chemotherapy are required for clinical efficacy. Cancer Research UK and KAEL-GemVax.

To assess the risk of radiosurgery to cause malignant transformation in benign tumors or to induce new malignancies. A retrospective cohort study comparing the Sheffield, England, radiosurgery patient database with national mortality and cancer registries. This data set comprises approximately 5000 patients and 30,000 patient-years of follow-up, with more than 1200 patients having a follow-up period longer than 10 years. In this material, a single new astrocytoma was diagnosed, whereas, based on national incidence figures, 2.47 cases would have been predicted. No increased risk of malignancy was detected in this series, supporting the safety of radiosurgery. Pragmatically, in advising patients, the risks of malignancy would seem small, particularly if such risks are considered in the context of the other risks faced by patients with intracranial pathologies requiring radiosurgical treatments.

Background Osteoradionecrosis of the mandible is the most common serious complication of radiotherapy for head and neck malignancy. For decades, hyperbaric oxygen has been employed in efforts to prevent those cases of osteoradionecrosis that are precipitated by dental extractions or implant placement. The evidence for using hyperbaric oxygen remains poor and current clinical practice varies greatly. We describe a protocol for a clinical trial to assess the benefit of hyperbaric oxygen in the prevention of osteoradionecrosis during surgery on the irradiated mandible. Methods/design The HOPON trial is a phase III, randomised controlled, multi-centre trial. It employs an unblinded trial design, but the assessment of the primary endpoint, i.e. the diagnosis of osteoradionecrosis, is assessed on anonymised clinical photographs and radiographs by a blinded expert panel. Eligibility is through the need for a high-risk dental procedure in the mandible where at least 50-Gy radiotherapy has been received. Patients are randomised 1:1 to hyperbaric oxygen arm (Marx protocol) : control arm, but both groups receive antibiotics and chlorhexidine mouthwash. The primary endpoint is the presence of osteoradionecrosis at 6 months following surgery, but secondary endpoints include other time points, acute symptoms and pain, quality of life, and where implants are placed, their successful retention. Discussion The protocol presented has evolved through feasibility stages and through analysis of interim data. The classification of osteoradionecrosis has undergone technical refinement to ensure that robust definitions are employed. The HOPON trial is the only multi-centre RCT conducted in this clinical setting despite decades of use of hyperbaric oxygen for the prevention of osteoradionecrosis. Trial registration European Clinical Trials Database, ID: EudraCT200700622527 . First registered on 5 November 2007.

ABSTRACTBackground To validate estimates of completeness of cancer ascertainment obtained by the flow method. Methods We generated a computer simulation of patient-level cancer registration processes, based loosely on the age distribution and survival of colorectal carcinoma patients, and utilizing a mixture of ‘cured’ and ‘killed’ subjects with an age-dependent fraction of ‘cured’ cases. The simulated data were then used in an analysis of completeness using the flow method. Validation of the simulation process was based on similarity of outputs to those obtained using real data, and validation of the flow method on its ability to correctly estimate the known proportion of cases in the simulated data which would never be registered. Results We successfully generated realistic data and have shown that completeness estimated by the flow method is close to the true value, whereas another method of estimating completeness (Ajiki's) was shown to be strongly biased. We also modelled what happens to completeness estimates when a new registry is set up. Conclusions When its assumptions are met (steady state for incidence, survival and stable population structure), the flow method works well but is biased for cancers with good survival. Further research is required to assess the robustness of the method when these conditions are not met.

Background Typical advice on the design and analysis of cluster randomized trials (C-RCTs) focuses on allowance for the clustering at the level of the unit of allocation. However often C-RCTs are also organised spatially as may occur in the fields of Public Health and Primary Care where populations may even overlap. Methods We allowed for spatial effects on the error variance by a multiple membership model. These are a form of hierarchical model in which each lower level unit is a member of more than one higher level unit. Membership may be determined through adjacency or through Euclidean distance of centroids or in other ways such as the proportion of overlapping population. Such models may be estimated for Normal, binary and Poisson responses in Stata (v10 or above) as well as in WinBUGS or MLWin. We used this to analyse a dummy trial and two real, previously published cluster-allocated studies (one allocating general practices within one City and the other allocating general practices within one County) to investigate the extent to which ignoring spatial effects affected the estimate of treatment effect, using different methods for defining membership with Akaike's Information Criterion to determine the \"best\" model. Results The best fitting model included both a fixed North-South gradient and a random cluster effect for the dummy RCT. For one of the real RCTs the best fitting model included both a random practice effect plus a multiple membership spatial term, while for the other RCT the best fitting model ignored the clustering but included a fixed North-South gradient. Alternative models which fitted only slightly less well all included spatial effects in one form or another, with some variation in parameter estimates (greater when less well fitting models were included). Conclusions These particular results are only illustrative. However, we believe when designing C-RCTs in a primary care setting the possibility of spatial effects should be considered in relation to the intervention and response, as well as any explanatory effect of fixed covariates, together with any implications for sample size and methods for planned analyses.

Background A recent Cochrane Review demonstrated the remarkable lack of reliable clinical trials of migraine treatments for children, especially for the two most prescribed preventative treatments in the UK, Propranolol and Pizotifen . Migraine trials in both children and adults have high placebo responder rates, e.g. of 23%, but for a trial's results to be generalisable \"placebo responders\" should not be excluded and for a drug to be worthwhile it should be clearly superior, both clinically and statistically, to placebo. Methods/Design Two multicentre, two arm double blind parallel group randomised controlled trials, with allocation ratio of 2:1 for each comparison, Propranolol versus placebo and Pizotifen versus placebo. The trial is designed to test whether Propranolol is superior to placebo and whether Pizotifen is superior to placebo for the prevention of migraine attacks in children aged 5 - 16 years referred to secondary care out-patient settings with frequent migraine (2-6/4 weeks). The primary outcome measure is the number of migraine attacks during trial weeks 11 to 14. Discussion A strength of this trial is the participation of clinically well defined migraine patients who will also be approached to help with future longer-term follow-up studies. Trial Registration ISRCTN97360154

Background When comparing cancer incidence or mortality rates between different regions, it is important to know how complete the registration data are on which these figures are based. A number of ways of estimating completeness have been proposed, but it is often difficult to say how precise these estimates are. We describe a computer program developed to produce measures of precision for estimates of completeness obtained by one such method, the flow method. Methods The program works by resampling the required data sets, and repeatedly calculating completeness estimates until convergence of the standard errors occurs. It was tested on colorectal tumours from a single health district, and empirical confidence limits for 1 and 5 year completeness were compared with those obtained by applying various normalizing transformations and a beta distribution. The method was then applied to tumours of the head and neck, breast and lung and the results compared with those from a capture–mark–recapture exercise carried out 4 years previously. Results The sampling distribution was close to normal for 1 year completeness, but much less so for 5 year completeness, as assessed by quantile plots. Approximation by a beta distribution was better than by normalizing transformation. Although there were differences between the results produced by the flow method and capture–recapture, the flow method is more reproducible and easier to apply. Conclusion It is now possible to estimate confidence limits for the results of the flow method, and thus determine whether comparative results between registries are likely to be affected by sampling error.