Two-by-Two Factorial Cancer Treatment Trials: Is Sufficient Attention Being Paid to Possible Interactions?

Immunotherapy combination approaches: mechanisms, biomarkers and clinical observations

The approval of the first immune checkpoint inhibitors provided a paradigm shift for the treatment of malignancies across a broad range of indications. Whereas initially, single-agent immune checkpoint inhibition was used, increasing numbers of patients are now treated with combination immune checkpoint blockade, where non-redundant mechanisms of action of the individual agents generally lead to higher response rates. Furthermore, immune checkpoint therapy has been combined with various other therapeutic modalities, including chemotherapy, radiotherapy and other immunotherapeutics such as vaccines, adoptive cellular therapies, cytokines and others, in an effort to maximize clinical efficacy. Currently, a large number of clinical trials test combination therapies with an immune checkpoint inhibitor as a backbone. However, proceeding without inclusion of broad, if initially exploratory, biomarker investigations may ultimately slow progress, as so far, few combinations have yielded clinical successes based on clinical data alone. Here, we present the rationale for combination therapies and discuss clinical data from clinical trials across the immuno-oncology spectrum. Moreover, we discuss the evolution of biomarker approaches and highlight the potential new directions that comprehensive biomarker studies can yield.

Overcoming Resistance to Immune Checkpoint Blockade in Liver Cancer with Combination Therapy: Stronger Together?

Primary liver cancer, represented mainly by hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (CCA), is one of the most common and deadliest tumors worldwide. While surgical resection or liver transplantation are the best option in early disease stages, these tumors often present in advanced stages and systemic treatment is required to improve survival time. The emergence of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy has had a positive impact especially on the treatment of advanced cancers, thereby establishing immunotherapy as part of first-line treatment in HCC and CCA. Nevertheless, low response rates reflect on the usually cold or immunosuppressed tumor microenvironment of primary liver cancer. In this review, we aim to summarize mechanisms of resistance leading to tumor immune escape with a special focus on the composition of tumor microenvironment in both HCC and CCA, also reflecting on recent important developments in ICI combination therapy. Furthermore, we discuss how combination of ICIs with established primary liver cancer treatments (e.g. multikinase inhibitors and chemotherapy) as well as more complex combinations with state-of-the-art therapeutic concepts may reshape the tumor microenvironment, leading to higher response rates and long-lasting antitumor immunity for primary liver cancer patients.

When should factorial designs be used for late-phase randomised controlled trials?

BACKGROUND

A 2×2 factorial design evaluates two interventions (A versus control and B versus control) by randomising to control, A-only, B-only or both A and B together. Extended factorial designs are also possible (e.g. 3×3 or 2×2×2). Factorial designs often require fewer resources and participants than alternative randomised controlled trials, but they are not widely used. We identified several issues that investigators considering this design need to address, before they use it in a late-phase setting.

METHODS

We surveyed journal articles published in 2000-2022 relating to designing factorial randomised controlled trials. We identified issues to consider based on these and our personal experiences.

RESULTS

We identified clinical, practical, statistical and external issues that make factorial randomised controlled trials more desirable. Clinical issues are (1) interventions can be easily co-administered; (2) risk of safety issues from co-administration above individual risks of the separate interventions is low; (3) safety or efficacy data are wanted on the combination intervention; (4) potential for interaction (e.g. effect of A differing when B administered) is low; (5) it is important to compare interventions with other interventions balanced, rather than allowing randomised interventions to affect the choice of other interventions; (6) eligibility criteria for different interventions are similar. Practical issues are (7) recruitment is not harmed by testing many interventions; (8) each intervention and associated toxicities is unlikely to reduce either adherence to the other intervention or overall follow-up; (9) blinding is easy to implement or not required. Statistical issues are (10) a suitable scale of analysis can be identified; (11) adjustment for multiplicity is not required; (12) early stopping for efficacy or lack of benefit can be done effectively. External issues are (13) adequate funding is available and (14) the trial is not intended for licensing purposes. An overarching issue (15) is that factorial design should give a lower sample size requirement than alternative designs. Across designs with varying non-adherence, retention, intervention effects and interaction effects, 2×2 factorial designs require lower sample size than a three-arm alternative when one intervention effect is reduced by no more than 24%-48% in the presence of the other intervention compared with in the absence of the other intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Factorial designs are not widely used and should be considered more often using our issues to consider. Low potential for at most small to modest interaction is key, for example, where the interventions have different mechanisms of action or target different aspects of the disease being studied.

Factorial survival analysis for treatment effects under dependent censoring

Factorial analyses offer a powerful nonparametric means to detect main or interaction effects among multiple treatments. For survival outcomes, for example, from clinical trials, such techniques can be adopted for comparing reasonable quantifications of treatment effects. The key difficulty to solve in survival analysis concerns the proper handling of censoring. So far, all existing factorial analyses for survival data have been developed under the independent censoring assumption, which is too strong for many applications. As a solution, the central aim of this article is to develop new methods for factorial survival analyses under quite general dependent censoring regimes. This will be accomplished by combining existing nonparametric methods for factorial survival analyses with techniques developed for survival copula models. As a result, we will present an appealing F-test that exhibits sound performance in our simulation study. The new methods are illustrated in a real data analysis. We implement the proposed method in an R function surv.factorial(.) in the R package compound.Cox.

Reporting of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement

Importance

Transparent reporting of randomized trials is essential to facilitate critical appraisal and interpretation of results. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, reporting of factorial trials is suboptimal.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 Statement for factorial trials.

Design

Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT extension for factorial trials was developed by (1) generating a list of reporting recommendations for factorial trials using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (from inception to May 2019) and supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors; (2) a 3-round Delphi survey between January and June 2022 to identify additional items and assess the importance of each item, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries; and (3) a hybrid consensus meeting attended by 15 panelists to finalize the selection and wording of items for the checklist.

Findings

This CONSORT extension for factorial trials modifies 16 of the 37 items in the CONSORT 2010 checklist and adds 1 new item. The rationale for the importance of each item is provided. Key recommendations are (1) the reason for using a factorial design should be reported, including whether an interaction is hypothesized, (2) the treatment groups that form the main comparisons should be clearly identified, and (3) for each main comparison, the estimated interaction effect and its precision should be reported.

Conclusions and Relevance

This extension of the CONSORT 2010 Statement provides guidance on the reporting of factorial randomized trials and should facilitate greater understanding of and transparency in their reporting.

Consensus Statement for Protocols of Factorial Randomized Trials: Extension of the SPIRIT 2013 Statement

Importance

Trial protocols outline a trial's objectives as well as the methods (design, conduct, and analysis) that will be used to meet those objectives, and transparent reporting of trial protocols ensures objectives are clear and facilitates appraisal regarding the suitability of study methods. Factorial trials, in which 2 or more interventions are assessed in the same set of participants, have unique methodological considerations. However, no extension of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 Statement, which provides guidance on reporting of trial protocols, for factorial trials is available.

Objective

To develop a consensus-based extension to the SPIRIT 2013 Statement for factorial trials.

Evidence Review

The SPIRIT extension for factorial trials was developed using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework. First, a list of reporting recommendations was generated using a scoping review of methodological articles identified using a MEDLINE search (inception to May 2019), which was supplemented with relevant articles from the personal collections of the authors. Second, a 3-round Delphi survey (January to June 2022, completed by 104 panelists from 14 countries) was conducted to assess the importance of items and identify additional recommendations. Third, a hybrid consensus meeting was held, attended by 15 panelists to finalize selection and wording of the checklist.

Findings

This SPIRIT extension for factorial trials modified 9 of the 33 items in the SPIRIT 2013 checklist. Key reporting recommendations were that the rationale for using a factorial design should be provided, including whether an interaction is hypothesized; the treatment groups that will form the main comparisons should be identified; and statistical methods for each main comparison should be provided, including how interactions will be assessed.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this consensus statement, 9 factorial-specific items were provided that should be addressed in all protocols of factorial trials to increase the trial's utility and transparency.

A multicentric, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, open-label trial to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of structured physical activity training and cognitive behavioural therapy versus usual care in heart failure patients: a protocol for the PACT-HF trial

Background: Heart failure (HF) is a multi-morbid chronic condition, which adversely affects the quality of life of the affected individual. Engaging the patient and their caregivers in self-care is known to reduce mortality, rehospitalisation and improve quality of life among HF patients. The PACT-HF trial will answer whether clinical benefits in terms of mortality and hospitalisation outcomes can be demonstrated by using a pragmatic design to explore the specific effects of physical activity, and cognitive behavioural therapy in HF patients in India. Methods: We will conduct a 2 × 2 factorial, randomized, open-label trial, which aims to see if rehabilitation strategies of structured physical activity training and cognitive behavioural therapy for depression and self-management reduce the risk of repeat hospitalisation and deaths in HF patients in India. Patients will be randomised to (1) physical activity + usual care (2) cognitive behaviour therapy + usual care, (3) physical activity + cognitive behaviour therapy + usual care, and (4) usual care at 1:1:1:1 ratio. Time to mortality will be the primary outcome. A composite of mortality and hospitalisation for HF will be the main secondary outcome. Additional secondary outcomes will include 'days alive and out of hospital', cumulative hospitalisation, quality of life, Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire score, depression score, six minutes walking distance, handgrip strength, and adherence to medicines and lifestyle.  The effects of intervention on the primary outcome will be estimated from Cox proportional hazard models. For the continuous secondary outcome variables, differences between randomised groups will be estimated from linear mixed models or generalised estimating equations (GEE) as appropriate. Discussion: PACT-HF is designed to provide reliable evidence about the balance of benefits and risks conferred by physical activity and cognitive behavioural therapy-based cardiac rehabilitation for those with HF, irrespective of their initial disease severity.

Combining factorial and multi-arm multi-stage platform designs to evaluate multiple interventions efficiently

BACKGROUND

Factorial-MAMS design platform designs have many advantages, but the practical advantages and disadvantages of combining the two designs have not been explored.

METHODS

We propose practical methods for a combined design within the platform trial paradigm where some interventions are not expected to interact and could be given together.

RESULTS

We describe the combined design and suggest diagrams that can be used to represent it. Many properties are common both to standard factorial designs, including the need to consider interactions between interventions and the impact of intervention efficacy on power of other comparisons, and to standard multi-arm multi-stage designs, including the need to pre-specify procedures for starting and stopping intervention comparisons. We also identify some specific features of the factorial-MAMS design: timing of interim and final analyses should be determined by calendar time or total observed events; some non-factorial modifications may be useful; eligibility criteria should be broad enough to include any patient eligible for any part of the randomisation; stratified randomisation may conveniently be performed sequentially; and analysis requires special care to use only concurrent controls.

CONCLUSION

A combined factorial-MAMS design can combine the efficiencies of factorial trials and multi-arm multi-stage platform trials. It allows us to address multiple research questions under one protocol and to test multiple new treatment options, which is particularly important when facing a new emergent infection such as COVID-19.

Effect of omega-3 and vitamin D co-supplementation on psychological distress in reproductive-aged women with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D: A randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Psychological distresses and pre-diabetes are among the risk factors of developing type-II diabetes. The present study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of omega-3 and vitamin D co-supplementation on psychological distresses in women of reproductive age with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D.

METHODS

The present factorial clinical trial was conducted on 168 women of reproductive age with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. These participants were selected by stratified random sampling and were assigned to four groups for 8 weeks: group 1 (placebo group), group 2 (omega-3 group), group 3 (vitamin D group), and group 4 (co-supplement group). The medication and placebo doses being two 1000-mg tablets each day for omega-3 and 50,000-IU pearls every 2 weeks for vitamin D. Fasting blood glucose and vitamin D were measured at the beginning of the study. The Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index were completed by the participants at the start and end of the intervention.

RESULTS

A significant difference was observed in terms of reduction in anxiety and improvement in sleep quality in the co-supplementation compared to the other three groups (p < .05). There was also a significant difference between the group receiving both supplements and the group receiving only placebos in terms of reduction in depression and stress (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Vitamin D and omega-3 co-supplementation improved depression, anxiety, and sleep quality in women of reproductive age with pre-diabetes and hypovitaminosis D. Therefore, these two supplements can be recommended for improving the mental health of this group of women.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials Code: IRCT20100130003226N17. Registered on February 9, 2019.

Joint testing of overall and simple effects for the two-by-two factorial trial design

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The two-by-two factorial design randomizes participants to receive treatment A alone, treatment B alone, both treatments A and B(AB), or neither treatment (C). When the combined effect of A and B is less than the sum of the A and B effects, called a subadditive interaction, there can be low power to detect the A effect using an overall test, that is, factorial analysis, which compares the A and AB groups to the C and B groups. Such an interaction may have occurred in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes blood pressure trial (ACCORD BP) which simultaneously randomized participants to receive intensive or standard blood pressure, control and intensive or standard glycemic control. For the primary outcome of major cardiovascular event, the overall test for efficacy of intensive blood pressure control was nonsignificant. In such an instance, simple effect tests of A versus C and B versus C may be useful since they are not affected by a subadditive interaction, but they can have lower power since they use half the participants of the overall trial. We investigate multiple testing procedures which exploit the overall tests' sample size advantage and the simple tests' robustness to a potential interaction.

METHODS

In the time-to-event setting, we use the stratified and ordinary logrank statistics' asymptotic means to calculate the power of the overall and simple tests under various scenarios. We consider the A and B research questions to be unrelated and allocate 0.05 significance level to each. For each question, we investigate three multiple testing procedures which allocate the type 1 error in different proportions for the overall and simple effects as well as the AB effect. The Equal Allocation 3 procedure allocates equal type 1 error to each of the three effects, the Proportional Allocation 2 procedure allocates 2/3 of the type 1 error to the overall A (respectively, B) effect and the remaining type 1 error to the AB effect, and the Equal Allocation 2 procedure allocates equal amounts to the simple A (respectively, B) and AB effects. These procedures are applied to ACCORD BP.

RESULTS

Across various scenarios, Equal Allocation 3 had robust power for detecting a true effect. For ACCORD BP, all three procedures would have detected a benefit of intensive glycemia control.

CONCLUSIONS

When there is no interaction, Equal Allocation 3 has less power than a factorial analysis. However, Equal Allocation 3 often has greater power when there is an interaction. The R package factorial2x2 can be used to explore the power gain or loss for different scenarios.

Systematic review of combinations of targeted or immunotherapy in advanced solid tumors

With rapid advances in our understanding of cancer, there is an expanding number of potential novel combination therapies, including novel-novel combinations. Identifying which combinations are appropriate and in which subpopulations are among the most difficult questions in medical research. We conducted a Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-guided systematic review of trials of novel-novel combination therapies involving immunotherapies or molecular targeted therapies in advanced solid tumors. A MEDLINE search was conducted using a modified Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy for published clinical trials between July 1, 2017, and June 30, 2020, in the top-ranked medical and oncology journals. Trials were evaluated according to a criterion adapted from previously published Food and Drug Administration guidance and other key considerations in designing trials of combinations. This included the presence of a strong biological rationale, the use of a new established or emerging predictive biomarker prospectively incorporated into the clinical trial design, appropriate comparator arms of monotherapy or supportive external data sources and a primary endpoint demonstrating a clinically meaningful benefit. Of 32 identified trials, there were 11 (34%) trials of the novel-novel combination of anti-programmed death 1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) and anti-cytotoxic T lymphocyte-associated antigen-4 (CTLA-4) therapy, and 10 (31%) trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 and anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) combination therapy. 20 (62.5%) trials were phase II trials, while 12 (37.5%) were phase III trials. Most (72%) trials lacked significant preclinical evidence supporting the development of the combination in the given indication. A majority of trials (69%) were conducted in biomarker unselected populations or used pre-existing biomarkers within the given indication for patient selection. Most studies (66%) were considered to have appropriate comparator arms or had supportive external data sources such as prior studies of monotherapy. All studies were evaluated as selecting a clinically meaningful primary endpoint. In conclusion, designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design. Designing trials to evaluate novel-novel combination therapies presents numerous challenges to demonstrate efficacy in a comprehensive manner. A greater understanding of biological rationale for combinations and incorporating predictive biomarkers may improve effective evaluation of combination therapies. Innovative statistical methods and increasing use of external data to support combination approaches are potential strategies that may improve the efficiency of trial design.

Precision medicine: Statistical methods for estimating adaptive treatment strategies

SERIES EDITORS' NOTE

The beauty of science is that all the important things are unpredictable. Freeman Dyson In the typescript which follows, Moodie and Krakow tackle the topical issue of precision medicine and statistical methods for estimating adaptive treatment strategies. This may be the most difficult typescript in our series so far for non-statisticians to understand. It even has equations! But please bear with the authors and give it a chance. One needs not to understand the equations to get the thrust of the strategy.Precision medicine as we discuss elsewhere, is misnamed. In statistics and mathematics precision refers to getting the same answer again and again. It does not mean getting the correct answer, the term for which is accuracy, not precision. However, precision is the current buzz word so there's no point trying to get this straight. When we think about precision we need to consider two elements, reproducibility and replicability. Reproducibility means you give me your data and computer code and I come to the same conclusion you did. Replicability is another matter. I try to replicate your experiment and hopefully reach the same conclusion. In medicine, replicability is obviously more important than reproducibility but things which cannot be reproduced are unlikely to be replicated.As the authors discuss, one can think about precision medicine as one does a family vacation. A best vacation depends on several co-variates: where you live, your prior travel experiences, advice from family and friends, online reviews, Wikitravel, cost, your travel budget, if you have kids and many other co-variates. Consequently, there is unlikely to be a best vacation for everyone. Yours might be a week at the Ritz Carlton Cancun with dinner at Careyes and ours, a week at the Pfister Hotel in Milwaukee with dinner at Mader's German Restaurant (bring simvastatin). Similarly, it is unlikely there is a best therapy of acute myeloid leukemia, a best donor, a best conditioning regimen, a best posttransplant immune suppressive regimen etc. and certainly no best combination of these co-variates for your patient.The question Moodie and Krakow tackle is how we can determine the best therapy or combination of therapies for someone receiving a haematopoietic cell transplant. Although the default answer is typically: randomized clinical trials are the gold standard, these inform us of the outcome of a cohort of subjects, not individuals. In many instances, although a new therapy may be shown to be better than an old one in a controlled randomized trial the benefit is not uniformly distributed. Some subjects in the experimental cohort may do worse with the new therapy compared with controls, others better. The question is who are the winners and losers? We cannot do a controlled randomized trial of one person. Moodie and Krakow discuss statistical tools to help us sort this out.Again, please do not be put off by the equations; forgetaboutit. The overriding message is not so complex, and important. We are always standing by on twitter @BMTStats to help. But don't confuse us with Match.com. And, by the way, Freeman Dyson was a professor at the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton but never got his PhD.Robert Peter Gale, Imperial College London, and Mei-Jie Zhang, Medical College of Wisconsin, Center for International Blood and Marrow Research (CIBMTR).

Reporting of randomized factorial trials was frequently inadequate

OBJECTIVES

Factorial designs can allow efficient evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. We evaluated the design, analysis, and reporting in a sample of factorial trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Review of 2 × 2 factorial trials evaluating health-related interventions and outcomes in humans. Using Medline, we identified articles published between January 2015 and March 2018. We randomly selected 100 articles for inclusion.

RESULTS

Most trials (78%) did not provide a rationale for using a factorial design. Only 63 trials (63%) assessed the interaction for the primary outcome, and 39/63 (62%) made a further assessment for at least one secondary outcome. 12/63 trials (19%) identified a significant interaction for the primary outcome and 16/39 trials (41%) for at least one secondary outcome. Inappropriate methods of analysis to protect against potential negative effects from interactions were common, with 18 trials (18%) choosing the analysis method based on a preliminary test for interaction, and 13% (n = 10/75) of those conducting a factorial analysis including an interaction term in the model.

CONCLUSION

Reporting of factorial trials was often suboptimal, and assessment of interactions was poor. Investigators often used inappropriate methods of analysis to try to protect against adverse effects of interactions.

The effect of co supplementation of omega-3 and vitamin D on cardio metabolic risk factors and psychological distress in reproductive-aged women with prediabetes and hypovitaminosis D: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

A prediabetic state is a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. There are no approved drugs to manage prediabetes. Among the supplements routinely used by individuals, vitamin D and omega-3 have been studied to reduce fasting blood sugar. However, their co-supplementation has not been studied in individuals with prediabetes. This randomized controlled trial is designed to determine the effects of these two supplements on fasting blood sugar, other cardio metabolic risk factors, and psychological distress in reproductive-aged women with prediabetes and hypovitaminosis D.

METHODS/DESIGN

This 2 × 2 factorial, triple-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial will be done on 168 women of reproductive age diagnosed with prediabetes and hypovitaminosis D. Participants will be randomly assigned equally to four groups: (1) 1000 mg omega-3 fatty acid twice a day + vitamin D placebo every two weeks; (2) omega-3 fatty acid placebo twice a day + 50,000 IU vitamin D every two weeks; (3) 1000 mg omega-3 fatty acid twice a day + 50,000 IU vitamin D every two weeks; (4) omega-3 fatty acid placebo twice a day + vitamin D placebo every two weeks for eight weeks. At the beginning, participants will provide a self-reported questionnaire on the sociodemographic characteristics. At baseline and post-intervention visits, physical activity, Depression Anxiety Stress Scale 21 and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, and a three-day food record will be collected for each individual. Blood pressure, weight, height, and waist circumference will also be measured. At the beginning and at the end, a blood sample will be used for estimating serum glucose indices (fasting blood sugar and insulin, homeostasis model assessment-insulin resistance, homeostasis model assessment-beta cell function), lipids (triglyceride, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, total cholesterol), and vitamin D status. Data analysis using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, paired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and repeated measures analysis of variance will be conducted through SPSS-24 software.

DISCUSSION

The primary aim of the present trial is to determine the effect of vitamin D and/or omega-3 on glycemic indices, lipid profiles, psychological distress, blood pressure, and anthropometric indices in prediabetic women with hypovitaminosis D. The results from this trial will provide evidence on the efficacy of these two supplements for preventing or delaying the onset of type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Iran Clinical Trials Registry, IRCT20100130003226N17. Registered on 9 February 2019.

The Surveillance After Extremity Tumor Surgery (SAFETY) trial: protocol for a pilot study to determine the feasibility of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Following the treatment of patients with soft tissue sarcomas (STS) that are not metastatic at presentation, the high risk for local and systemic disease recurrence necessitates post-treatment surveillance. Systemic recurrence is most often detected in the lungs. The most appropriate surveillance frequency and modality remain unknown and, as such, clinical practice is highly varied. We plan to assess the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will evaluate the effect on overall 5-year survival of two different surveillance frequencies and imaging modalities in patients with STS who undergo surgical excision with curative intent.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Surveillance After Extremity Tumor Surgery trial will be a multi-centre 2×2 factorial RCT. Patients with non-metastatic primary Grade II or III STS treated with excision will be allocated to one of four treatment arms1: chest radiograph (CXR) every 3 months for 2 years2; CXR every 6 months for 2 years3; chest CT every 3 months for 2 years or4 chest CT every 6 months for 2 years. The primary outcome of the pilot study is the feasibility of a definitive RCT based on a combination of feasibility endpoints. Secondary outcomes for the pilot study include the primary outcome of the definitive trial (overall survival), patient-reported outcomes on anxiety, satisfaction and quality of life, local recurrence-free survival, metastasis-free survival, treatment-related complications and net healthcare costs related to surveillance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial received provisional ethics approval from the McMaster/Hamilton Health Sciences Research Ethics Board on 7 August 2019 (Project number 7562). Final ethics approval will be obtained prior to commencing patient recruitment. Once feasibility has been established and the definitive protocol is finalised, the study will transition to the definitive study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03944798; Pre-results.

Acupuncture and clomiphene for Chinese women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOSAct): statistical analysis approach with the revision and explanation

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy of reproductive-aged women. Clomiphene is regarded as the first-line medical treatment for ovulation induction in PCOS patients and acupuncture is often used as an alternative and complementary treatment for fertility issues such as those associated with PCOS. The efficacy of acupuncture alone or combined with clomiphene still lacks strong supporting evidence. Factorial 2 × 2 designs can be used for the evaluations of two treatments within a single study, to test the main effects of acupuncture and clomiphene and their interactions.

METHODS

PCOSAct was designed to test the effect of clomiphene and acupuncture by three two-group comparisons in the original protocol. However, the trial was designed as a standard factorial trial and the factorial analysis approach for analyzing the data that were actually obtained during the trial was found to be more appropriate and more powerful than the three two-group comparisons described in the original protocol, so the statistical analysis approach and different datasets of PCOSAct in the primary publication were accordingly changed.

DISCUSSION

Although the statistical analysis approach used in the primary publication deviated from the statistical analysis planned in the study protocol, focusing on the main effects of the two interventions and their interactions was a more standard approach to a factorial trial and proved to be more suitable and consistent with the characteristics of the trial data. Statistically, the revision is more powerful and precise and should be more useful to the journal and the readers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese clinical trial registry, ChiCTR-TRC-12002081 . Registered on 20 March 2012. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01573858 . Registered on 4 April 2012.