Re-inventing the randomized controlled trial in medical oncology: The registry-based trial

A qualitative study exploring stakeholders' perceptions of registry-based randomised controlled trials capacity and capability in Australia

BACKGROUND

Traditional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. Traditional RCTs however are complex, expensive and have low external validity. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an emerging alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of a traditional RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting more real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCTs are a novel research design, there is limited understanding of the RRCT landscape in Australia. This qualitative study aims to explore the RRCT landscape in Australia including current capacity and capabilities, and to identify challenges and opportunities for conducting RRCTs.

METHODS

We conducted 30 semi-structured interviews with 18 clinician researchers, 6 research program managers and 6 research governance officers. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the data using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We identified four overarching themes: (1) understanding of the RRCT methodology concept and knowledge of Australian clinical registries and RRCT landscape; (2) enablers and barriers in the uptake and conduct of RRCTs; (3) ethics and governance requirements impacting the conduct of RRCTs and (4) recommendations for the promotion, support and implementation of RRCTs. Understanding of and ability to define an RRCT varied considerably amongst participants, as did their appreciation of the role the registry should play in supporting these trials. Lack of ongoing funding to support both registries and RRCTs, along with low awareness and minimal education around this methodology, were identified as the predominant barriers to the uptake of RRCTs in Australia. The simplicity of RRCTs, specifically their pragmatic nature and lower costs, was identified as one of their best attributes. There was consensus that inadequate funding, onerous research governance requirements and poor awareness of this methodology were currently prohibitive in enticing clinicians and researchers to conduct RRCTs. Recommendations to improve the uptake of RRCTs included establishing a sustainable funding model for both registries and RRCTs, harmonising governance requirements across jurisdictions and increasing awareness of RRCTs through education initiatives.

CONCLUSIONS

RRCTs in Australia are an evolving methodology with slow but steady uptake across a number of clinical disciplines. Whilst RRCTs are increasingly identified as a beneficial alternative methodology to evaluate and improve current standards of care, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation were identified. Creating greater awareness of the benefits of RRCTs across a number of stakeholders to help secure ongoing funding and addressing both registry and RRCT governance challenges are two essential steps in enhancing the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

Use cases of registry-based randomized controlled trials-A review of the registries' contributions and constraints

Registry-based randomized controlled trials (RRCTs) can combine the advantages of registries with those of randomization. This review aimed to expand the current knowledge on RRCT utilization and implementation by providing a comprehensive overview of RRCT use cases. A targeted literature search was conducted through July 2023 to identify articles on RRCTs. Information regarding the RRCT characteristics, their utilization, and the registries' contributions and the constraints faced was extracted. Descriptive statistics were used. We identified 102 RRCTs in 110 publications. RRCTs were mostly performed for the assessment of medical devices or surgical/clinical procedures (n = 45), followed by drugs (n = 30). More than half of the RRCTs were conducted in the Nordic countries (n = 58) and the most used registry types were health service registries/administrative health data (n = 63), followed by disease registries (n = 46). Approximately half of the RRCTs (n = 53) utilized additional data sources aside from registry data. The contribution of a registry to the RRCT was mostly for data collection and study follow-up (n = 90-92), followed by patient recruitment (n = 56-61), and randomization (n = 28-38), with varying levels of transparency in reporting. We collated author-reported constraints related to the used registries into four overarching themes, that is, data availability and completeness, data quality, representativeness, and registry infrastructure and accessibility. This review shows that RRCTs are already used in different domains and geographic regions. Guidelines on structured and transparent reporting of RRCT methods and the optimal use are, however, needed to inform decision-making by health authorities and to reach their full potential.

Improving Clinical Registry Data Quality via Linkage With Survival Data From State-Based Population Registries

PURPOSE

Real-world data (RWD) collected on patients treated as part of routine clinical care form the basis of cancer clinical registries. Capturing accurate death data can be challenging, with inaccurate survival data potentially compromising the integrity of registry-based research. Here, we explore the utility of data linkage (DL) to state-based registries to enhance the capture of survival outcomes.

METHODS

We identified consecutive adult patients with brain tumors treated in the state of Victoria from the Brain Tumour Registry Australia: Innovation and Translation (BRAIN) database, who had no recorded date of death and no follow-up within the last 6 months. Full name and date of birth were used to match patients in the BRAIN registry with those in the Victorian Births, Deaths and Marriages (BDM) registry. Overall survival (OS) outcomes were compared pre- and post-DL.

RESULTS

Of the 7,346 clinical registry patients, 5,462 (74%) had no date of death and no follow-up recorded within the last 6 months. Of the 5,462 patients, 1,588 (29%) were matched with a date of death in BDM. Factors associated with an increased number of matches were poor prognosis tumors, older age, and social disadvantage. OS was significantly overestimated pre-DL compared with post-DL for the entire cohort (pre- v post-DL: hazard ratio, 1.43; P < .001; median, 29.9 months v 16.7 months) and for most individual tumor types. This finding was present independent of the tumor prognosis.

CONCLUSION

As revealed by linkage with BDM, a high proportion of patients in a brain cancer clinical registry had missing death data, contributed to by informative censoring, inflating OS calculations. DL to pertinent registries on an ongoing basis should be considered to ensure accurate reporting of survival data and interpretation of RWD outcomes.

Randomized controlled trials and alternative study designs in surgical oncology

Surgery is central to the cure of most solid cancers and an integral part of modern multimodal cancer management for early and advanced stage cancers. Decisions made by surgeons and multidisciplinary team members are based on best available knowledge for the defined clinical situation at hand. While surgery is both an art and a science, good decision-making requires data that are robust, valid, representative and, applicable to most if not all patients with a specific cancer. Such data largely comes from clinical observations and registries, and more preferably from trials conducted with the specific purpose of arriving at new answers. As part of the ESSO core curriculum development an increased focus has been put on the need to enhance research literacy among surgical candidates. As an expansion of the curriculum catalogue list and to enhance the educational value, we here present a set of principles and emerging concepts which applies to surgical oncologist for reading, understanding, planning and contributing to future surgeon-led cancer trials.

"Nothing to lose and the possibility of gaining": a qualitative study on the feasibility and acceptability of registry-based randomised controlled trials among cancer patients and clinicians

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the "gold standard" for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in clinical research. However, conventional RCTs are typically complex, expensive, and have narrow eligibility criteria, which limits generalisability. Registry-based randomised controlled trials (RRCTs) are an alternative approach that integrates the internal validity of an RCT with the external validity of a clinical registry by recruiting real-world patients and leveraging an existing registry platform for data collection. As RRCT is a novel research design, there has been limited research on the feasibility and acceptability of RRCTs from the patients' and trial team's perspectives. This study aims to explore patients', clinicians', and study coordinators' perspectives towards participation in and conduct of oncology RRCTs in Australia.

METHODS

Thirty-seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 cancer patients, 15 clinicians, and 7 study coordinators. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) enablers and barriers to recruitment and enrolment of patients in RRCTs, (2) experiences of patients participating in RRCTs, and (3) recommendations for the implementation of future RRCTs. For patients, altruism and "trust in the clinician" were key reasons to participate in a RRCT. For clinicians and clinical trial coordinators, the RRCT study design was perceived as "simple and straightforward" but "less exciting" than RCTs. Competition from commercially sponsored RCTs poses challenges for investigator-led RRCTs recruitment, particularly if eligible patient numbers are low. There were limited impacts on patients' treatment experiences and clinicians' clinical workflow given that the RRCTs explored different standards of care. Recommendations to improve the enrolment of patients in RRCTs included generating greater buy-in from clinicians by increasing awareness of RRCTs via education initiatives and broader promotion of the "selling point" of RRCTs and providing monetary compensation to hospitals for enrolling patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst patients, clinicians, and study coordinators were generally supportive of RRCTs, several barriers to effective RRCT implementation in oncology were identified. Developing strategies to increase acceptance of the methodology by clinicians will help enhance the uptake of RRCTs in Australia and internationally.

[Evidence-based health care with pharmaceuticals for rare diseases: the role of digitalisation]

Knowledge generation in the field of drug development for people with rare diseases (RDs) faces particular difficulties. This paper will show what improvements are expected from increasing digitalisation from the perspective of three healthcare institutions: the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and the Federal Joint Committee.First, the potential of digitalisation to increase the efficiency of clinical development and regulatory decision-making through earlier collaboration of all stakeholders is proposed. Subsequently, it is argued that digitalisation should be used to reduce barriers to the implementation of care-associated randomised controlled trials, including those based on registries. High-quality registry studies should not only be started after approval but during the approval process, so that the evidence necessary for therapy decisions is available promptly after approval. Finally, it is stated that improving the evidence base through qualitative improvement of the data sources and their linkages directly benefits patients. Usable evidence that can be generated over a longer period of time - also beyond approval - and contribute to decisions within healthcare system ensures effective drug provision.The institutions agree that high-quality indication registries should be developed as product-independent, standing infrastructures so that high-quality data can be accessed early in the development of medicines for RD.

Burn Registries State of Affairs: A Scoping review

Registry science allows for the interpretation of disease-specific patient data from secondary databases. It can be utilized to understand disease and injury, answer research questions, and engender benchmarking of quality-of-care indicators. Numerous burn registries exist globally, however, their contributions to burn care have not been summarized. The objective of this study is to characterize the available literature on burn registries. The authors conducted a scoping review, having registered the protocol a priori. A thorough search of the English literature, including grey literature, was carried out. Publications of all study designs were eligible for inclusion provided they utilized, analyzed, and/or critiqued data from a burn registry. Three hundred twenty studies were included, encompassing 16 existing burn registries. The most frequently used registries for peer-reviewed publications were the American Burn Association Burn Registry, Burn Model System National Database, and the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand. The main limitations of existing registries are the inclusion of patients admitted to burn centers only, deficient capture of outpatient and long-term outcome data, lack of data standardization across registries, and the paucity of studies on burn prevention and quality improvement methodology. Registries are an invaluable source of information for research, delivery of care planning, and benchmarking of processes and outcomes. Efforts should be made to stimulate other jurisdictions to build burn registries and for existing registries to be improved through data linkage with administrative databases, and by standardizing one international minimum dataset, in order to maximize the potential of registry science in burn care.

Leveraging Comprehensive Cancer Registry Data to Enable a Broad Range of Research, Audit and Patient Support Activities

Simple Summary

Registry data has the potential to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the experience and learnings of a series of large multi-institutional cancer registries that leverage real-world clinical data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of each registry in a virtuous cycle. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of information being collected, regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. As a standalone resource, each registry has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support the discovery and valiation of prognostic and predictive markers in the tumour and blood specimens. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly studies exploring the best use of drug options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Abstract

Traditional cancer registries have often been siloed efforts, established by single groups with limited objectives. There is the potential for registry data to support a broad range of research, audit and education initiatives. Here, we describe the establishment of a series of comprehensive cancer registries across the spectrum of common solid cancers. The experience and learnings of each registry team as they develop, implement and then use collected data for a range of purposes, that informs the conduct and output of other registries in a virtuous cycle. Each registry is multi-site, multi-disciplinary and aims to collect data of maximal interest and value to a broad range of enquiry, which would be accessible to any researcher with a high-quality proposal. Lessons learnt include the need for careful and continuous curation of data fields, with regular database updates, and the need for a continued focus on data quality. The registry data as a standalone resource has supported numerous projects, but linkage with external datasets with patients in common has enhanced the audit and research potential. Multiple projects have linked registry data with matched tissue specimens to support prognostic and predictive biomarker studies, both validation and discovery. Registry-based biomarker trials have been successfully supported, generating novel and practice-changing data. Registry-based clinical trials, particularly randomised studies exploring the optimal use of available therapy options are now complementing the research conducted in traditional clinical trials. More recent projects supported by the registries include health economic studies, personalised patient education material, and increased consumer engagement, including consumer entered data.

Beyond standard data collection – the promise and potential of BRAIN (Brain tumour Registry Australia INnovation and translation registry)

Background

Real-world data (RWD) is increasingly being embraced as an invaluable source of information to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that are unlikely to ever be answered by clinical trials. However, the largely unrealised potential of RWD is the value to be gained by supporting prospective studies and translational research. Here we describe the design and implementation of an Australian brain cancer registry, BRAIN, which is pursuing these opportunities.

Methods

BRAIN was designed by a panel of clinicians in conjunction with BIOGRID to capture comprehensive clinical data on patients diagnosed with brain tumours from diagnosis through treatment to recurrence or death. Extensive internal and external testing was undertaken, followed by implementation at multiple sites across Victoria and Tasmania.

Results

Between February 2021 and December 2021, a total of 350 new patients from 10 sites, including one private and two regional, were entered into BRAIN. Additionally, BRAIN supports the world’s first registry trial in neuro-oncology, EX-TEM, addressing the optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide; and BioBRAIN, a dedicated brain tumour translational program providing a pipeline for biospecimen collection matched with linked clinical data.

Conclusions

Here we report on the first data collection effort in brain tumours for Australia, which we believe to be unique worldwide given the number of sites and patients involved and the extent to which the registry resource is being leveraged to support clinical and translational research. Further directions such as passive data flow and data linkages, use of artificial intelligence and inclusion of patient-entered data are being explored.

Prioritizing Measures that Matter Within a Person-Centered Oncology Learning Health System

Background

Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS.

Methods

A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities.

Results

Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients).

Conclusions

The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains.

Opportunities and barriers for the use of Australian cancer registries as platforms for randomized clinical trials

It is well recognized that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a powerful tool to investigate causal relationships, and are considered the gold standard level of research evidence. However, RCTs can be expensive and time-consuming, and when they employ strict eligibility criteria, it results in an unrepresentative population and limited external validity. Recently, the registry-based randomized clinical trial (RRCT) has emerged as an alternative trial design. Utilizing registries to underpin such studies, RRCTs can have advantages including rapid recruitment, and enhanced generalizability. In Australia, legislated mandatory reporting of cancer diagnoses means that jurisdictional cancer registries are a rich source of systematically collected patient details, representing sound platforms for comprehensive data capture that can serve as a key tool for further research. We review the roles of cancer registries in Australia, discuss important considerations relevant to the design of RRCTs, and outline the opportunities provided by cancer registries to strengthen cancer research.

Options for the Treatment of Mucinous Ovarian Carcinoma

OPINION STATEMENT

Complete surgical resection is the gold-standard treatment for all mucinous ovarian carcinoma (MOC) cases. Advanced-stage disease is often additionally treated with adjuvant platinum-based chemotherapy; however, these were developed largely against the more common high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma and have low efficacy in treating MOC. More effective therapeutics are needed to treat late-stage and platinum-resistant tumors; however, traditional drug development and clinical trial paradigms are a major challenge for such a rare disease. New approaches to support evidence-based treatment decisions are required, such as registry trials. Recently, a number of targeted therapies have emerged as viable treatment options in other cancer types, and for some of these, the actionable tumor mutations are also seen in MOC. Thus, a promising alternative approach to provide benefit to current MOC patients involves DNA sequencing to identify a tumor's unique mutational profile and allow matching to available targeted agents. Such a pipeline can involve special approval to administer a drug already approved for clinical use in other cancer types to a given MOC patient, or their inclusion in existing ongoing clinical trials, such as basket trials encompassing patients with tumors from a range of anatomical sites. Implementation of such personalized medicine can be boosted using improved pre-clinical models, where through a clinical research collaboration a patient's own tumor cells can be used to a test a range of putative therapies prior to administration in the clinic, enabling selection of the available pharmaceutical/s that give any given patient the best possible chance of cancer remission.

Patient perceptions of the challenges of recruitment to a renal randomised trial registry: a pilot questionnaire-based study

Background

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for demonstrating the efficacy of new therapies. However, issues of external validity often affect result application to real-world settings. Using registries to conduct RCTs is a reasonably new practice, but is appealing because it combines the benefits of both observational studies and RCTs. There is limited literature on patient motivators, barriers, and consent to registries for conducting RCTs. The purpose of our study was to establish the factors that motivate and/or inhibit patients from joining a registry for RCTs and to determine what information matters to patients when making an enrolment decision to participate in such a registry.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional questionnaire-based study at a dialysis centre in Southwest Ireland representing a catchment patient population of approximately 430,000. Quantitative data were coded and analysed in SPSS (v16). Descriptive statistics were produced, and open-ended questions were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Eighty-seven patients completed the questionnaire. Reasons for participation in a registry included personal and altruistic benefits. Barriers to participation were time and travel requirements associated with registry participation, data safety concerns, risks, side effects, and concerns that registry participation would impact current treatment. Although 29.8% of patients expressed concern regarding their data being stored in a registry, 79.3% were still willing to consent to have their data uploaded and stored in a registry for conducting RCTs. It was important to patients to have their GP (general practitioner) involved in the decision to participate, despite little day-to-day contact with their GP for renal dialysis management.

Conclusion

Challenges to recruitment to registries for RCTs exist, but addressing the identified concerns of potential participants may aid patients in making a more informed enrolment decision and may improve recruitment to registries, and by extension, to RCTs conducted using the registry.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05526-9.

Multicenter randomized controlled trial and registry study to assess the safety and efficacy of the NanoKnife® system for the ablation of stage 3 pancreatic adenocarcinoma: overview of study protocols

BACKGROUND

Irreversible electroporation (IRE) is a local ablation technique utilizing high voltage, low energy direct current to create nanopores in cell membrane which disrupt homeostasis and leads to cell death. Previous reports have suggested IRE may have a role in treating borderline resectable and unresectable Stage 3 pancreatic tumors.

METHODS

Patients with Stage 3 pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) will be enrolled in either a randomized, controlled, multicenter trial (RCT) or a multicenter registry study. Subjects enrolled in the RCT must have no evidence of disease progression after 3 months of modified FOLFIRINOX (mFOLFIRINOX) treatment prior to being randomization to either a control or IRE arm. Post-induction and post-IRE treatment for the control and IRE arms, respectively, will be left to the discretion of the treating physician. The RCT will enroll 528 subjects with 264 per arm and include up to 15 sites. All subjects will be followed for at least 24 months or until death. The registry study will include two cohorts of patients with Stage 3 PDAC, patients who received institutional standard of care (SOC) alone and those treated with IRE in addition to SOC. Both cohorts will be required to have undergone at least 3 months of SOC without progression prior to enrollment. The registry study will enroll 532 patients with 266 patients in each arm. All patients will be followed for at least 24 months or until death. The primary efficacy endpoint for both studies will be overall survival (OS). Co-primary safety endpoints will be 1) time from randomization or enrollment in the registry to death or new onset of Grade 4 adverse event (AE), and (2 high-grade complications defined as any AE or serious AE (SAE) with a CTCAE v5.0 grade of 3 or higher. Secondary endpoints will include progression-free survival, cancer-related pain, quality of life, and procedure-related pain for the IRE arm only.

DISCUSSION

These studies are intended to provide Level 1 clinical evidence and real-world data demonstrating the clinical utility and safety of the use of IRE in combination with chemotherapy in patients with Stage 3 PDAC.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03899636 and NCT03899649. Registered April 2, 2019. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) trial G180278 approved on May 3, 2019.

Big data registries in spine surgery research: the lurking dangers

Spine surgery research has improved considerably over the last few decades. Its' most recent growth is in large part due to the mounting increase in studies conducted using national databases and registries. With easy access to a large number of patients, the benefit of these registries has become evident. However, as with any research, this type of data must be used responsibly with the appropriate strengths and limitations kept in mind. Inappropriate use of these registries continues to be a growing concern as potentially false or inaccurate conclusions can adversely impact clinical practice. It is, therefore, the author and the readers' responsibility to acknowledge and understand the limitations of this type of data. Knowledge of methodological requirements in the use and analyses of registry data is essential to ensuring quality evidence with proper interpretation.

The scientific basis of rational prescribing. A guide to precision clinical pharmacology based on the WHO 6-step method

Background and methods

This opinion paper expanded on the WHO “six-step approach to optimal pharmacotherapy,” by detailed exploration of the underlying pharmacological and pathophysiological principles. This exercise led to the identification of a large number of domains of research that should be addressed to make clinical pharmacology progress toward “precision clinical pharmacology,” as a prerequisite for precision medicine.

Result

In order to improve clinical efficacy and safety in patient groups (to guide drug development) as well as in individuals (to guide therapeutic options and optimize clinical outcome), developments in clinical pharmacology should at least tackle the following: (1) molecular diagnostic assays to guide drug design and development and allow physicians to identify the optimal targets for therapy in the individual patient in a quick and precise manner (to guide selection of the right drug for the right patient); (2) the setting up and validation of biomarkers of target engagement and modification as predictors of clinical efficacy and safety; (3) integration of physiological PK/PD models and intermediate markers of pharmacological effects with the natural evolution of the disease to predict the drug dose that most effectively improves clinical outcome in patient groups and individuals, making use of advanced modeling technologies (building on deterministic models, machine-learning, and deep learning algorithms); (4) methodology to validate human or humanized in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo models for their ability to predict clinical outcome with investigational therapies, including nucleic acids or recombinant genes together with vectors (including viruses or nanoparticles), cell therapy, or therapeutic vaccines; (5) methodological complements to the gold-standard, large Phase 3 randomized clinical trial to provide clinically relevant and reliable data on the efficacy and safety of all treatment options at the population level (pragmatic clinical trials), as well as in small groups of patients (as low as n = 1); (6) regulatory science, so as to optimize the ethical review process, documentation, and monitoring of clinical trials, improve efficiency, and reduce costs of clinical drug development; (7) interventions to effectively improve patient compliance and to rationalize polypharmacy for the reduction of adverse effects and the enhancement of therapeutic interactions; and (8) appraisal of the ecological and societal impact of drug use to safeguard against environmental hazards (following the “One Health” concept) and to reduce drug resistance.

Discussion and conclusion

As can be seen, precision clinical pharmacology aims at being highly translational, which will require very large panels of complementary skills. Interdisciplinary collaborations, including non-clinical pharmacologists, will be key to achieve such an ambitious program.

Using digital technologies in clinical trials: Current and future applications

In 2015, we provided an overview of the use of digital technologies in clinical trials, both as a methodological tool and as a mechanism to deliver interventions. At that time, there was limited guidance and limited use of digital technologies in clinical research. However, since then smartphones have become ubiquitous and digital health technologies have exploded. This paper provides an update to our earlier publication and an overview of how technology has been used in the past five years in clinical trials, providing examples with varying levels of technological integration and across different health conditions. Digital technology integration ranges from the incorporation of artificial intelligence in diagnostic devices to the use of real-world data (e.g., electronic health records) for study recruitment. Clinical trials can now be conducted entirely virtually, eliminating the need for in-person interaction. Much of the published research demonstrates how digital approaches can improve the design and implementation of clinical trials. While challenges remain, progress over the last five years is encouraging, and barriers can be overcome with careful planning.

Defining key design elements of registry-based randomised controlled trials: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Traditional randomised controlled trials remain the gold standard for improving clinical care but they do have their limitations, including their associated high costs, high failure rate and limited external validity. An alternative methodology is the newly defined, prospective, registry-based randomised controlled trial (RRCT), where treatment and outcome data is collected in an existing registry. This scoping review explores the current literature regarding RRCTs to help identify the key design elements of RRCTs and the characteristics of clinical registries on which they are reliant on.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines was performed. Four databases were searched for articles published from inception to June 2018: Medline; Embase; the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and; Scopus. The search strategy included MeSH and text words related to RRCT.

RESULTS

We identified 2369 articles of which 75 were selected for full-text screening. Of these, only 17 articles satisfied our inclusion criteria. All studies were published between 1996 and 2017 and all were investigator-initiated. Study designs were mainly multi-site comparative/effectiveness studies incorporating the use of disease registries (n = 8), procedure registries (n = 8) and a health services registry (n = 1). The low cost, reduced administrative burden and enhanced external validity of RRCTs make them an attractive research methodology which can be used to address questions of public health importance. We identified that that there are variable definitions of what constituted a RRCT and that issues related to ethical conduct and data integrity, completeness, timeliness, validation and endpoint adjudication need to be carefully addressed.

CONCLUSION

RRCTs potentially have an important role to play in informing best clinical practice and health policy. There are a number of issues that need to be addressed to optimise the utility of this approach, including establishing universally accepted criteria for the definition of a RRCT.

Evaluation of Patterns of Presentation, Practice, and Outcomes of Upper Tract Urothelial Cancer: Protocol for an Observational, International, Multicenter, Cohort Study by the Clinical Research Office of the Endourology Society

BACKGROUND

Available guidelines on the management of upper tract urothelial carcinoma (UTUC) are restricted due to the lack of strong evidence-based recommendations. Adequate, well-powered randomized trials are missing due to the rarity of the disease. To overcome this problem, we need alternative study designs to provide generalizable data.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim of this registry is to provide a real-world overview on patterns of presentation and management of UTUC. Secondary objectives include comparison of outcomes of different treatments and tumor stages and evaluation of compliance with the current European Association of Urology recommendations for UTUC.

METHODS

For this observational, international, multicenter, cohort study, clinical data of consecutive patients suspected of having UTUC, irrespective of type of management, will be prospectively collected up to 5 years after inclusion. Data on the patterns of presentation, diagnostics, and treatment as well as short-, mid-, and long-term oncological and functional outcomes will be analyzed. Possible associations between variables, basal characteristics, and outcomes will be tested by multivariable analyses. The methodology will address potential sources of bias and confounders.

RESULTS

The registry was initiated in November 2014 after obtaining institutional review board approval. Data collection started in December 2014. At the time of submission of this manuscript, 2451 patients from 125 centers from 37 countries were included. Inclusion of patients will be closed 5 years after initiation of the registry. Quality checks will be performed centrally with continuous communication and feedback with the centers to ensure accuracy. The first results are expected in the first trimester of 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational prospective cohort will generate landmark "real-world" data and hypotheses for further studies. We expect these data to optimize the management of UTUC, provide insights on harms and benefits of treatment, and serve as quality control.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02281188; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02281188.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/15363.