The Challenge of Equipoise: Qualitative Interviews Exploring the Views of Health Professionals and Women With Multiple Ipsilateral Breast Cancer in a Surgical Randomised Controlled Trial.

BackgroundA multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, was conducted from September 2018 to March 2020. The MIAMI surgical trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women. Multidisciplinary teams at 10 breast care centres in the UK identified 190 with MIBC diagnosis; 20 were eligible for trial participation but after being approached only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment.MethodsInterviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison.ResultsOverarching themes of 1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and 2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment as ‘the treatment landscape has changed’; staff preferences and beliefs’ which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of ‘altruism and timing of trial approach’; ‘influences from consultants and others’; and ‘diagnostic journey doubts’ all played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial.ConclusionsBarriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice.Trial registration numbers: ISRCTN (ISRCTN17987569) registered 20/04/2018, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17987569; and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514654).

The challenge of equipoise: qualitative interviews exploring the views of health professionals and women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer in a surgical randomised controlled trial

Background. A multicentre feasibility trial (MIAMI), comparing outcomes and quality of life of women with multiple ipsilateral breast cancer (MIBC) randomised to therapeutic mammoplasty or mastectomy, has been conducted. The MIAMI feasibility trial aimed to investigate recruitment of sufficient numbers of women to this surgical trial, however only four patients were recruited. A nested qualitative study sought to understand the reasons for this lack of recruitment.Methods. Interviews were conducted from November 2019 to September 2020 with 17 staff from eight hospital-based breast care centres that recruited and attempted to recruit to MIAMI; and seven patients from four centres, comprising all patients who were recruited to the trial and some who declined to take part. Interviews were audio-recorded, anonymised and analysed using thematic methods of building codes into themes and sub-themes using the process of constant comparison.Results. Overarching themes of 1) influences on equipoise and recruitment and 2) effects of a lack of equipoise were generated. Within these themes health professional themes described the barriers to recruitment in ‘the treatment landscape has changed’; staff preferences and beliefs’ which influenced equipoise and patient advice; and how different the treatments were for patients. Patient themes of ‘altruism and timing of trial approach’; ‘influences from consultants and others’; and ‘diagnostic journey doubts’ played a part in whether patients agreed to take part in the trial.Conclusions. Barriers to recruiting to breast cancer surgical trials can be significant, especially where there are substantial differences between the treatments being offered and a lack of equipoise communicated by healthcare professionals to patients. Patients can become overwhelmed by numerous requests for participation in research trials and inappropriate timing of trial discussions. Alternative study designs to the gold standard randomised control trial for surgical interventions may be required to provide the high-quality evidence on which to base practice.Trial registration numbers: ISRCTN (ISRCTN17987569) and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514654).

The effect of animated consent material on participants’ willingness to enrol in a placebo-controlled surgical trial: a protocol for a randomised feasibility study

Background Placebo-controlled surgical trials are recognised as the gold standard way to test the efficacy of a surgical procedure. Despite a rise in arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) surgeries for the treatment of shoulder pain, only two placebo-controlled surgical trials have been conducted. These trials encountered significant recruitment challenges, threatening the external validity of findings. Difficulties with recruitment are common in clinical trials and likely to be amplified in placebo-controlled surgical trials. This mixed method feasibility trial aims to address the following questions: (i) Feasibility: What proportion of patients who have consented to undergo ASD report that they would be willing to enrol in a placebo-controlled trial for this procedure? (ii) Optimisation: Can patients’ willingness to enrol in, or understanding of, such a trial be improved by supplementing written consent materials with a brief visual animation that outlines the details of the trial? And (iii) exploration: What factors influence patients stated willingness to enrol in such a trial, and how do they believe the recruitment process could be improved? Methods This study aims to recruit 80 patients on the waiting list for ASD. Participants will be randomised (1:1) to either view a brief video animation explaining the hypothetical placebo-controlled trial in addition to written information or to written information only. Participants in both groups will be required to state if they would be willing to opt-in to the hypothetical ASD trial after immediately being presented with the consent material and again 1 week after completion of the consent process. Patients in both groups will also be required to complete a measure of trial literacy. Twenty participants will be purposively sampled to take part in an embedded qualitative study exploring understanding of trial concepts and factors contributing to willingness to opt-in. Discussion This feasibility study will provide evidence for optimising participant recruitment into a placebo-controlled trial of ASD by consenting patients using animated trial information in addition to written information. This pilot and feasibility data may also be relevant to placebo-controlled surgical trials more broadly, which are characterised by recruitment challenges. Trial registration ANZCTR, ACTRN12620001132932, date October 30, 2020

Evaluation of robotic versus open partial pancreatoduodenectomy—study protocol for a randomised controlled pilot trial (EUROPA, DRKS00020407)

Background Partial pancreatoduodenectomy (PD) is the indicated surgical procedure for a wide range of benign and malignant diseases of the pancreatic head and distal bile duct and offers the only potential cure for pancreatic head cancer. The current gold standard, open PD (OPD) performed via laparotomy, is associated with morbidity in around 40% of cases, even at specialised centres. Robotic PD (RPD) might offer a viable alternative to OPD and has been shown to be feasible. Encouraging perioperative results have been reported for RPD in a number of small, non-randomised studies. However, since those studies showed a considerable risk of bias, a thorough comparison of RPD with OPD is warranted. Methods The EUROPA (EvalUation of RObotic partial PAncreatoduodenectomy) trial is designed as a randomised controlled unblinded exploratory surgical trial with two parallel study groups. A total of 80 patients scheduled for elective PD will be randomised after giving written informed consent. Patients with borderline or non-resectable carcinoma of the pancreatic head as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, distant metastases or an American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) score > III will be excluded. The experimental intervention, RPD, will be compared with the control intervention, OPD. An intraoperative dropout of approximately eight patients per group is expected because they may receive another type of surgical procedure than planned. Overall, 64 patients need to be analysed. The primary endpoint of the trial is overall postoperative morbidity within 90 days after index operation, measured using the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI). The secondary endpoints include the feasibility of recruitment and assessment of clinical, oncological and safety parameters and quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Discussion The EUROPA trial is the first randomised controlled trial comparing RPD with OPD. Differences in postoperative morbidity will be evaluated to design a future multicentre confirmatory efficacy trial. Trial registration German Clinical Trial Register DRKS00020407. Registered on 9 March 2020