Ten-year Mortality, Disease Progression, and Treatment-related Side Effects in Men with Localised Prostate Cancer from the ProtecT Randomised Controlled Trial According to Treatment Received

BACKGROUND

The ProtecT trial reported intention-to-treat analysis of men with localised prostate cancer (PCa) randomly allocated to active monitoring (AM), radical prostatectomy, and external beam radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine report outcomes according to treatment received in men in randomised and treatment choice cohorts.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study focuses on secondary care. Men with clinically localised prostate cancer at one of nine UK centres were invited to participate in the treatment trial comparing AM, radical prostatectomy, and radiotherapy.

INTERVENTION

Two cohorts included 1643 men who agreed to be randomised; 997 declined randomisation and chose treatment.

OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Health-related quality of life impacts on urinary, bowel, and sexual function were assessed using patient-reported outcome measures. Analysis was carried out based on treatment received for each cohort and on pooled estimates using meta-analysis. Differences were estimated with adjustment for known prognostic factors using propensity scores.

RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS

According to treatment received, more men receiving AM died of PCa (AM 1.85%, surgery 0.67%, radiotherapy 0.73%), whilst this difference remained consistent with chance in the randomised cohort (p=0.08); stronger evidence was found in the exploratory analyses (randomised plus choice cohort) when AM was compared with the combined radical treatment group (p=0.003). There was also strong evidence that metastasis (AM 5.6%, surgery 2.4%, radiotherapy 2.7%) and disease progression (AM 20.35%, surgery 5.87%, radiotherapy 6.62%) were more common in the AM group. Compared with AM, there were higher risks of sexual dysfunction (95% at 6mo) and urinary incontinence (55% at 6mo) after surgery, and of sexual dysfunction (88% at 6mo) and bowel dysfunction (5% at 6mo) after radiotherapy. The key limitations are the potential for bias when comparing groups defined by treatment received and outdating of the interventions being evaluated during the lengthy follow-up required in trials of screen-detected PCa.

CONCLUSIONS

Analyses according to treatment received showed increased rates of disease-related events and lower rates of patient-reported harms in men managed by AM compared with men managed by radical treatment, and stronger evidence of greater PCa mortality in the AM group.

PATIENT SUMMARY

More than 90 out of every 100 men with localised prostate cancer do not die of prostate cancer within 10yr, irrespective of whether treatment is by means of monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy. Side effects on sexual and bladder function are much better after active monitoring, but the risks of spreading of prostate cancer are more common.

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials

Evidence shows that the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. The lack of transparent reporting impedes readers from judging the reliability and validity of trial findings and researchers from extracting information for systematic reviews and results in research waste. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement was developed to improve the reporting of RCTs. Within person trials are used for conditions that can affect two or more body sites, and are a useful and efficient tool because the comparisons between interventions are within people. Such trials are most commonly conducted in ophthalmology, dentistry, and dermatology. The reporting of within person trials has, however, been variable and incomplete, hindering their use in clinical decision making and by future researchers. This document presents the CONSORT extension to within person trials. It aims to facilitate the reporting of these trials. It extends 16 items of the CONSORT 2010 checklist and introduces a modified flowchart and baseline table to enhance transparency. Examples of good reporting and evidence based rationale for CONSORT within person checklist items are provided.

Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

OBJECTIVE

To assess a comprehensive package of ultrasound quality control in the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study of the INTERGROWTH-21^st Project, a large multicenter study of fetal growth.

METHODS

Quality control (QC) measures were performed for 20 313 ultrasound scan images obtained prospectively from 4321 fetuses at 14-41 weeks' gestation in eight geographical locations. At the time of each ultrasound examination, three fetal biometric variables (head circumference (HC), abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL)) were measured in triplicate on separately generated images. All measurements were taken in a blinded fashion. QC had two elements: (1) qualitative QC: visual assessment by sonographers at each study site of their images based on specific criteria, with 10% of images being re-assessed at the Oxford-based Ultrasound Quality Unit (compared using an adjusted kappa statistic); and (2) quantitative QC: assessment of measurement data by comparing the first, second and third measurements (intraobserver variability), remeasurement of caliper replacement in 10% (interobserver variability), both by Bland-Altman plots and plotting frequency histograms of the SD of triplicate measurements and assessing how many were above or below 2 SD of the expected distribution. The system allowed the sonographers' performances to be monitored regularly.

RESULTS

A high level of agreement between self- and external scoring was demonstrated for all measurements (κ = 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98-0.99) for HC, 0.98 (95% CI, 0.97-0.99) for AC and 0.96 (95% CI, 0.95-0.98) for FL). Intraobserver 95% limits of agreement (LoA) of ultrasound measures for HC, AC and FL were ± 3.3%, ± 5.6% and ± 6.2%, respectively; the corresponding values for interobserver LoA were ± 4.4%, ± 6.0% and ± 5.6%. The SD distribution of triplicate measurements for all biometric variables showed excessive variability for three of 31 sonographers, allowing prompt identification and retraining.

CONCLUSIONS

Qualitative and quantitative QC monitoring was feasible and highly reproducible in a large multicenter research study, which facilitated the production of high-quality ultrasound images. We recommend that the QC system we developed is implemented in future research studies and clinical practice. Copyright © 2017 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research

Background While the patient and public involvement (PPI) evidence base has expanded over the past decade, the quality of reporting within papers is often inconsistent, limiting our understanding of how it works, in what context, for whom, and why.Objective To develop international consensus on the key items to report to enhance the quality, transparency, and consistency of the PPI evidence base. To collaboratively involve patients as research partners at all stages in the development of GRIPP2.Methods The EQUATOR method for developing reporting guidelines was used. The original GRIPP (Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public) checklist was revised, based on updated systematic review evidence. A three round Delphi survey was used to develop consensus on items to be included in the guideline. A subsequent face-to-face meeting produced agreement on items not reaching consensus during the Delphi process.Results 143 participants agreed to participate in round one, with an 86% (123/143) response for round two and a 78% (112/143) response for round three. The Delphi survey identified the need for long form (LF) and short form (SF) versions. GRIPP2-LF includes 34 items on aims, definitions, concepts and theory, methods, stages and nature of involvement, context, capture or measurement of impact, outcomes, economic assessment, and reflections and is suitable for studies where the main focus is PPI. GRIPP2-SF includes five items on aims, methods, results, outcomes, and critical perspective and is suitable for studies where PPI is a secondary focus.Conclusions GRIPP2-LF and GRIPP2-SF represent the first international evidence based, consensus informed guidance for reporting patient and public involvement in research. Both versions of GRIPP2 aim to improve the quality, transparency, and consistency of the international PPI evidence base, to ensure PPI practice is based on the best evidence. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on The BMJ and Research Involvement and Engagement journal websites.

Erratum to: Methods for evaluating medical tests and biomarkers

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1186/s41512-016-0001-y.].

Abstract S2-03: Does BRCA status affect outcome in young breast cancer patients? Results from the prospective study of outcomes in sporadic and hereditary breast cancer (POSH)

Background

Germline mutations in BRCA1/2 account for ∼3% of breast cancer cases but >10% of young patients who present with triple negative (TN) breast cancer. Young age at diagnosis is also associated with an increased risk of recurrence and inferior survival compared to older patients. Numerous publications describe an increased incidence of adverse biological features in tumours from young breast cancer patients; however it is unclear whether these fully explain the poor outcome.

The effect of carrying a BRCA1/2 mutation on the prognosis of breast cancer remains controversial with retrospective studies reporting better, similar and worse outcomes for mutation carriers compared to patients with sporadic tumours. BRCA carriers could feasibly have enhanced or reduced sensitivity to certain chemotherapeutics; however retrospective studies are problematic due to missing data and biased ascertainment. POSH is multicentre prospective observational cohort study designed to investigate factors which affect prognosis in young breast cancer patients (Copson et al, JNCI, 2013). Here we report the pathology, treatment and outcome of patients with TN tumours as a preliminary analysis to determine the impact of a germline BRCA1 mutation on survival. The whole cohort analysis including BRCA1 and BRCA2 is in progress.

Methods

2956 patients aged ≤40 at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from 127 UK oncology centres between 2000 and 2008. Patient characteristics, family history, risk factors, tumour pathology and treatment information, and blood DNA were collected at recruitment. Follow-up data were collected at 6 and 12 months, then annually. Summary statistics were used to describe patients by BRCA1 status. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to describe univariate survival data.

Results

BRCA1 status is currently available for 542 patients with TN tumours. Pathogenic BRCA1 mutations were identified in 122 patients (BRCA1+); 420 had no BRCA1 mutation (BRCA1-). BRCA1+ were younger than BRCA1- (median age 34 vs 36 years, p<0.001) and more likely to have a positive family history (p<0.001). There were no significant differences between BRCA1+ vs BRCA1- for: median tumour size (20.8mm vs 23.0mm); tumour grade distribution (95.8% grade 3 vs 93.6%); nodal involvement (35.2% node positive vs 39.9%); or presence of metastases at diagnosis (0.0% vs 1.0%).

Median follow-up was 7.3 years. Overall survival of patients with stage 1-3 disease treated with anthracycline +/- taxane neoadjuvant chemotherapy (n=538; 151 deaths) was better for BRCA1+ vs BRCA1- (79.1% vs 73.6% at 5-yrs; HR[95%CI]=0.84[0.57,1.25],p=0.388). Distant disease-free survival (DDFS) was also higher for BRCA1+ (5-yr DDFS 76.1% vs 71.5%; HR[CI]=0.92[0.63,1.35], p=0.682). Moreover, survival after first distant relapse was better for BRCA1+ patients (41.9% vs 36.8% at 1-yr; HR[CI]=0.78[0.51,1.18], p=0.233).

Conclusions

Our prospective data show better survival in young BRCA1+ patients with early TN breast cancer treated with anthracycline/-taxane chemotherapy than BRCA1- patients. However, the difference between the groups was not significant in this partial sample. Results for the whole cohort will be available by the time of the meeting.

Citation Format: Eccles DM, Copson ER, Maishman T, Tapper W, Cutress R, Gerty S, Stanton L, Altman DG, Durcan L, Simmonds P, Decker B, Allen J, Luccarini C, Easton D, Dunning A, POSH Steering Group and Collaborators. Does BRCA status affect outcome in young breast cancer patients? Results from the prospective study of outcomes in sporadic and hereditary breast cancer (POSH) [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr S2-03.

The antepartum stillbirth syndrome: risk factors and pregnancy conditions identified from the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

OBJECTIVES

To identify risk factors for antepartum stillbirth, including fetal growth restriction, among women with well-dated pregnancies and access to antenatal care.

DESIGN

Population-based, prospective, observational study.

SETTING

Eight international urban populations.

POPULATION

Pregnant women and their babies enrolled in the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21^st Project.

METHODS

Cox proportional hazard models were used to compare risks among antepartum stillborn and liveborn babies.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Antepartum stillbirth was defined as any fetal death after 16 weeks' gestation before the onset of labour.

RESULTS

Of 60 121 babies, 553 were stillborn (9.2 per 1000 births), of which 445 were antepartum deaths (7.4 per 1000 births). After adjustment for site, risk factors were low socio-economic status, hazard ratio (HR): 1.6 (95% CI, 1.2-2.1); single marital status, HR 2.0 (95% CI, 1.4-2.8); age ≥40 years, HR 2.2 (95% CI, 1.4-3.7); essential hypertension, HR 4.0 (95% CI, 2.7-5.9); HIV/AIDS, HR 4.3 (95% CI, 2.0-9.1); pre-eclampsia, HR 1.6 (95% CI, 1.1-3.8); multiple pregnancy, HR 3.3 (95% CI, 2.0-5.6); and antepartum haemorrhage, HR 3.3 (95% CI, 2.5-4.5). Birth weight <3rd centile was associated with antepartum stillbirth [HR, 4.6 (95% CI, 3.4-6.2)]. The greatest risk was seen in babies not suspected to have been growth restricted antenatally, with an HR of 5.0 (95% CI, 3.6-7.0). The population-attributable risk of antepartum death associated with small-for-gestational-age neonates diagnosed at birth was 11%.

CONCLUSIONS

Antepartum stillbirth is a complex syndrome associated with several risk factors. Although small babies are at higher risk, current growth restriction detection strategies only modestly reduced the rate of stillbirth.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

International stillbirth study finds individual risks poor predictors of death but combinations promising.

Explicit inclusion of treatment in prognostic modeling was recommended in observational and randomized settings

OBJECTIVES

To compare different methods to handle treatment when developing a prognostic model that aims to produce accurate probabilities of the outcome of individuals if left untreated.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Simulations were performed based on two normally distributed predictors, a binary outcome, and a binary treatment, mimicking a randomized trial or an observational study. Comparison was made between simply ignoring treatment (SIT), restricting the analytical data set to untreated individuals (AUT), inverse probability weighting (IPW), and explicit modeling of treatment (MT). Methods were compared in terms of predictive performance of the model and the proportion of incorrect treatment decisions.

RESULTS

Omitting a genuine predictor of the outcome from the prognostic model decreased model performance, in both an observational study and a randomized trial. In randomized trials, the proportion of incorrect treatment decisions was smaller when applying AUT or MT, compared to SIT and IPW. In observational studies, MT was superior to all other methods regarding the proportion of incorrect treatment decisions.

CONCLUSION

If a prognostic model aims to produce correct probabilities of the outcome in the absence of treatment, ignoring treatments that affect that outcome can lead to suboptimal model performance and incorrect treatment decisions. Explicitly, modeling treatment is recommended.

Systematic review of the methodological and reporting quality of case series in surgery

BACKGROUND

Case series are an important and common study type. No guideline exists for reporting case series and there is evidence of key data being missed from such reports. The first step in the process of developing a methodologically sound reporting guideline is a systematic review of literature relevant to the reporting deficiencies of case series.

METHODS

A systematic review of methodological and reporting quality in surgical case series was performed. The electronic search strategy was developed by an information specialist and included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methods Register, Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation index, from the start of indexing to 5 November 2014. Independent screening, eligibility assessments and data extraction were performed. Included articles were then analysed for five areas of deficiency: failure to use standardized definitions, missing or selective data (including the omission of whole cases or important variables), transparency or incomplete reporting, whether alternative study designs were considered, and other issues.

RESULTS

Database searching identified 2205 records. Through the process of screening and eligibility assessments, 92 articles met inclusion criteria. Frequencies of methodological and reporting issues identified were: failure to use standardized definitions (57 per cent), missing or selective data (66 per cent), transparency or incomplete reporting (70 per cent), whether alternative study designs were considered (11 per cent) and other issues (52 per cent).

CONCLUSION

The methodological and reporting quality of surgical case series needs improvement. The data indicate that evidence-based guidelines for the conduct and reporting of case series may be useful.

[Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide]

Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is remarkably poor. To improve the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, an international group of experts and stakeholders developed the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. The process involved a literature review for relevant checklists and research, a Delphi survey of an international panel of experts to guide item selection, and a face-to-face panel meeting. The resultant 12-item TIDieR checklist (brief name, why, what (materials), what (procedure), who intervened, how, where, when and how much, tailoring, modifications, how well (planned), how well (actually carried out)) is an extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement (item 5) and the SPIRIT 2013 statement (item 11). While the emphasis of the checklist is on trials, the guidance is intended to apply across all evaluative study designs. This paper presents the TIDieR checklist and guide, with a detailed explanation of each item, and examples of good reporting. The TIDieR checklist and guide should improve the reporting of interventions and make it easier for authors to structure the accounts of their interventions, reviewers and editors to assess the descriptions, and readers to use the information.

The COMET initiative database: progress and activities update (2014)

The COMET Initiative database is a repository of studies relevant to the development of core outcome sets (COS). Use of the website continues to increase, with more than 16,500 visits in 2014 (36 % increase over 2013), 12,257 unique visitors (47 % increase), 9780 new visitors (43 % increase) and a rise in the proportion of visits from outside the UK (8565 visits; 51 % of all visits). By December 2014, a total of 6588 searches had been completed, with 2383 in 2014 alone (11 % increase). The growing awareness of the need for COS is reflected in the website and database usage figures.

Family history and outcome of young patients with breast cancer in the UK (POSH study)

BACKGROUND

Young patients presenting to surgical clinics with breast cancer are usually aware of their family history and frequently believe that a positive family history may adversely affect their prognosis. Tumour pathology and outcomes were compared in young British patients with breast cancer with and without a family history of breast cancer.

METHODS

Prospective Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH) is a large prospective cohort study of women aged less than 41 years with breast cancer diagnosed and treated in the UK using modern oncological management. Personal characteristics, tumour pathology, treatment and family history of breast/ovarian cancer were recorded. Follow-up data were collected annually.

RESULTS

Family history data were available for 2850 patients. No family history was reported by 65·9 per cent, and 34·1 per cent reported breast/ovarian cancer in at least one first- or second-degree relative. Patients with a family history were more likely to have grade 3 tumours (63·3 versus 58·9 per cent) and less likely to have human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive tumours (24·7 versus 28·8 per cent) than those with no family history. In multivariable analyses, there were no significant differences in distant disease-free intervals for patients with versus those without a family history, either for the whole cohort (hazard ratio (HR) 0·89, 95 per cent c.i. 0·76 to 1·03; P = 0·120) or when stratified by oestrogen receptor (ER) status (ER-negative: HR 0·80, 0·62 to 1·04, P = 0·101; ER-positive: HR 0·95, 0·78 to 1·15, P = 0·589).

CONCLUSION

Young British patients presenting to breast surgical clinics with a positive family history can be reassured that this is not a significant independent risk factor for breast cancer outcome.

Making randomised trials more efficient: report of the first meeting to discuss the Trial Forge platform

Randomised trials are at the heart of evidence-based healthcare, but the methods and infrastructure for conducting these sometimes complex studies are largely evidence free. Trial Forge ( www.trialforge.org ) is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision making and, in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.This paper summarises a one-day workshop held in Edinburgh on 10 July 2014 to discuss Trial Forge and how to advance this initiative. We first outline the problem of inefficiency in randomised trials and go on to describe Trial Forge. We present participants' views on the processes in the life of a randomised trial that should be covered by Trial Forge.General support existed at the workshop for the Trial Forge approach to increase the evidence base for making randomised trial decisions and for improving trial efficiency. Agreed upon key processes included choosing the right research question; logistical planning for delivery, training of staff, recruitment, and retention; data management and dissemination; and close down. The process of linking to existing initiatives where possible was considered crucial. Trial Forge will not be a guideline or a checklist but a 'go to' website for research on randomised trials methods, with a linked programme of applied methodology research, coupled to an effective evidence-dissemination process. Moreover, it will support an informal network of interested trialists who meet virtually (online) and occasionally in person to build capacity and knowledge in the design and conduct of efficient randomised trials.Some of the resources invested in randomised trials are wasted because of limited evidence upon which to base many aspects of design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of clinical trials. Trial Forge will help to address this lack of evidence.

A systematic review of the use of an expertise-based randomised controlled trial design

BACKGROUND

Under a conventional two-arm randomised trial design, participants are allocated to an intervention and participating health professionals are expected to deliver both interventions. However, health professionals often have differing levels of expertise in a skill-based interventions such as surgery or psychotherapy. An expertise-based approach to trial design, where health professionals only deliver an intervention in which they have expertise, has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this project was to systematically review the use of an expertise-based trial design in the medical literature.

METHODS

We carried out a comprehensive search of nine databases--AMED, BIOSIS, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Science Citation Index, and PsycINFO--from 1966 to 2012 and performed citation searches using the ISI Citation Indexes and Scopus. Studies that used an expertise-based trial design were included. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts and assessed full-text reports. Data were extracted and summarised on the study characteristics, general and expertise-specific study methodology, and conduct.

RESULTS

In total, 7476 titles and abstracts were identified, leading to 43 included studies (54 articles). The vast majority (88%) used a pure expertise-based design; three (7%) adopted a hybrid design, and two (5%) used a design that was unclear. Most studies compared substantially different interventions (79%). In many cases, key information relating to the expertise-based design was absent; only 12 (28%) reported criteria for delivering both interventions. Most studies recruited the target sample size or very close to it (median of 101, interquartile range of 94 to 118), although the target was reported for only 40% of studies. The proportion of participants who received the allocated intervention was high (92%, interquartile range of 82 to 99%).

CONCLUSIONS

While use of an expertise-based trial design is growing, it remains uncommon. Reporting of study methodology and, particularly, expertise-related methodology was poor. Empirical evidence provided some support for purported benefits such as high levels of recruitment and compliance with allocation. An expertise-based trial design should be considered but its value seems context-specific, particularly when interventions differ substantially or interventions are typically delivered by different health professionals.

Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-RISk patients randomised to off- or on-Pump surgery: a randomised controlled trial (the CRISP trial)

BACKGROUND

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the treatment of choice for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD). Evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in low-risk populations shows that 'off-pump' CABG is at least as safe as 'on-pump' CABG, but high-quality trial data in high-risk populations are lacking.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis that, in high-risk patients, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG) reduces mortality and morbidity without causing a higher risk of reintervention compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (ONCABG).

DESIGN

Open parallel-group RCT with a 1 : 1 allocation ratio and expertise-based randomisation.

SETTING

Eight specialist cardiac surgery centres in the UK and one specialist centre in Kolkata, India.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with an additive European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation score (EuroSCORE) of ≥ 5, undergoing non-emergency isolated CABG via a median sternotomy.

INTERVENTIONS

CABG without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), i.e. OPCABG on the beating heart, or CABG with CPB, i.e. ONCABG on a chemically arrested heart.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome - a composite of death or serious morbidity [all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, prolonged initial ventilation, sternal wound dehiscence] within 30 days of surgery. Secondary outcomes - quality of life (QoL) [Rose Angina Questionnaire, Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) angina class, European QoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), Coronary Revascularisation Outcome Questionnaire (CROQ)] and resource utilisation.

RESULTS

The organisation of a tertiary cardiac surgery service in the UK presented several barriers to recruitment. Referral information was often inadequate to confirm eligibility. Limited surgeon participation at a centre, the need to meet referral-to-treatment performance targets and complex referral pathways did not support an expertise-based allocation. Urgent patients waiting for surgery in local 'feeder' hospitals were often not transferred until late the night before surgery, which limited the time available to take consent and organise the surgery on an expertise basis. Several elective patients declined to take part because they wanted the surgeon they had met when the surgery was first discussed in clinic to operate. Several initiatives were explored to boost recruitment. After 10 months of recruitment, the trial design was modified to permit both within-surgeon and expertise-based randomisation within a centre. However, this did not have sufficient impact and the trial was stopped on the grounds of futility after 106 patients (< 2% of the target sample size) had been recruited in 18 months. Ninety-eight patients were included in the trial analyses, six patients were withdrawn and two died before surgery. In both groups, 6% of patients experienced the primary outcome [adjusted odds ratio (OR) (OPCABG to ONCABG) 1.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.27 to 4.14]. QoL scores at 4-8 weeks post surgery were similar in the two groups. Patients randomised to OPCABG had a shorter stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital after surgery (median 26.0 vs. 27.7 hours in intensive care and 7 vs. 8 days in hospital).

CONCLUSIONS

The Coronary artery bypass grafting in high-RISk patients randomised to off- or on-Pump surgery (CRISP) trial was not successful for a range of logistical reasons. However, the experience gained is of value for the design and conduct of future trials. The surgical community have polarised views. A qualitative evaluation of the reasons behind the views held by the advocates of the two techniques is an area for future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN29161170.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the Medical Research Council/National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The distribution of clinical phenotypes of preterm birth syndrome: implications for prevention

IMPORTANCE

Preterm birth has been difficult to study and prevent because of its complex syndromic nature.

OBJECTIVE

To identify phenotypes of preterm delivery syndrome in the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A population-based, multiethnic, cross-sectional study conducted at 8 geographically demarcated sites in Brazil, China, India, Italy, Kenya, Oman, the United Kingdom, and the United States. A total of 60,058 births over a 12-month fixed period between April 27, 2009, and March 2, 2014. Of these, 53,871 had an ultrasonography estimate of gestational age, among which 5828 were preterm births (10.8%). Pregnancies were prospectively studied using a standardized data collection and online data management system. Newborns had anthropometric and clinical examinations using standardized methods and identical equipment and were followed up until hospital discharge.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main study outcomes were clusters of preterm phenotypes and for each cluster, we analyzed signs of presentation at hospital admission, admission rates for neonatal intensive care for 7 days or more, and neonatal mortality rates.

RESULTS

Twelve preterm birth clusters were identified using our conceptual framework. Eleven consisted of combinations of conditions known to be associated with preterm birth, 10 of which were dominated by a single condition. However, the most common single cluster (30.0% of the total preterm cases; n = 1747) was not associated with any severe maternal, fetal, or placental condition that was clinically detectable based on the information available; within this cluster, many cases were caregiver initiated. Only 22% (n = 1284) of all the preterm births occurred spontaneously without any of these severe conditions. Maternal presentation on hospital admission, newborn anthropometry, and risk for death before hospital discharge or admission for 7 or more days to a neonatal intensive care unit, none of which were used to construct the clusters, also differed according to the identified phenotypes. The prevalence of preterm birth ranged from 8.2% in Muscat, Oman, and Oxford, England, to 16.6% in Seattle, Washington.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We identified 12 preterm birth phenotypes associated with different patterns of neonatal outcomes. In 22% of all preterm births, parturition started spontaneously and was not associated with any of the phenotypic conditions considered. We believe these results contribute to an improved understanding of this complex syndrome and provide an empirical basis to focus research on a more homogenous set of phenotypes.

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision-making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, healthcare professionals and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study, regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD Statement

BACKGROUND

Prediction models are developed to aid healthcare providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision-making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed.

METHODS

An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, healthcare professionals and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors.

RESULTS

The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study.

CONCLUSION

The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. A complete checklist is available at http://www.tripod-statement.org.

Transparent reporting of a multivariable prediction model for individual prognosis or diagnosis (TRIPOD): the TRIPOD statement

Prediction models are developed to aid health-care providers in estimating the probability or risk that a specific disease or condition is present (diagnostic models) or that a specific event will occur in the future (prognostic models), to inform their decision making. However, the overwhelming evidence shows that the quality of reporting of prediction model studies is poor. Only with full and clear reporting of information on all aspects of a prediction model can risk of bias and potential usefulness of prediction models be adequately assessed. The Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) Initiative developed a set of recommendations for the reporting of studies developing, validating, or updating a prediction model, whether for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. This article describes how the TRIPOD Statement was developed. An extensive list of items based on a review of the literature was created, which was reduced after a Web-based survey and revised during a 3-day meeting in June 2011 with methodologists, health-care professionals, and journal editors. The list was refined during several meetings of the steering group and in e-mail discussions with the wider group of TRIPOD contributors. The resulting TRIPOD Statement is a checklist of 22 items, deemed essential for transparent reporting of a prediction model study. The TRIPOD Statement aims to improve the transparency of the reporting of a prediction model study regardless of the study methods used. The TRIPOD Statement is best used in conjunction with the TRIPOD explanation and elaboration document. To aid the editorial process and readers of prediction model studies, it is recommended that authors include a completed checklist in their submission (also available at www.tripod-statement.org).

Obesity and the outcome of young breast cancer patients in the UK: the POSH study

BACKGROUND

Obese breast cancer patients have a poorer prognosis than non-obese patients. We examined data from a large prospective cohort study to explore the associations of obesity with tumour pathology, treatment and outcome in young British breast cancer patients receiving modern oncological treatments.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A total of 2956 patients aged ≤40 at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from 126 UK hospitals from 2001 to 2007. Height and weight were measured at registration. Tumour pathology and treatment details were collected. Follow-up data were collected at 6, 12 months, and annually.

RESULTS

A total of 2843 eligible patients (96.2%) had a body mass index (BMI) recorded: 1526 (53.7%) were under/healthy-weight (U/H, BMI <25 kg/m(2)), 784 (27.6%) were overweight (ov, BMI ≥25 to <30), and 533 (18.7%) were obese (ob, BMI ≥30). The median tumour size was significantly higher in obese and overweight patients than U/H patients (Ob 26 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001; Ov 24 mm versus U/H 20 mm, P < 0.001). Obese and overweight patients had significantly more grade 3 tumours (63.9% versus 59.0%, P = 0.048; Ov 63.6% versus U/H 59.0% P = 0.034) and node-positive tumours (Ob 54.6% versus U/H 49.0%, P = 0.027; Ov 54.2% versus U/H 49%, P = 0.019) than U/H patients. Obese patients had more ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours than healthy-weight patients (25.0% versus 18.3%, P = 0.001). Eight-year overall survival (OS) and distant disease-free interval (DDFI) were significantly lower in obese patients than healthy-weight patients [OS: hazard ratio (HR) 1.65, P < 0.001; DDFI: HR 1.44, P < 0.001]. Multivariable analyses adjusting for tumour grade, size, nodal, and HER2 status indicated that obesity was a significant independent predictor of OS and DDFI in patients with ER-positive disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Young obese breast cancer patients present with adverse tumour characteristics. Despite adjustment for this, obesity still independently predicts DDFI and OS.

International standards for early fetal size and pregnancy dating based on ultrasound measurement of crown-rump length in the first trimester of pregnancy

OBJECTIVES

There are no international standards for relating fetal crown-rump length (CRL) to gestational age (GA), and most existing charts have considerable methodological limitations. The INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project aimed to produce the first international standards for early fetal size and ultrasound dating of pregnancy based on CRL measurement.

METHODS

Urban areas in eight geographically diverse countries that met strict eligibility criteria were selected for the prospective, population-based recruitment, between 9 + 0 and 13 + 6 weeks' gestation, of healthy well-nourished women with singleton pregnancies at low risk of fetal growth impairment. GA was calculated on the basis of a certain last menstrual period, regular menstrual cycle and lack of hormonal medication or breastfeeding in the preceding 2 months. CRL was measured using strict protocols and quality-control measures. All women were followed up throughout pregnancy until delivery and hospital discharge. Cases of neonatal and fetal death, severe pregnancy complications and congenital abnormalities were excluded from the study.

RESULTS

A total of 4607 women were enrolled in the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study, one of the three main components of the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, of whom 4321 had a live singleton birth in the absence of severe maternal conditions or congenital abnormalities detected by ultrasound or at birth. The CRL was measured in 56 women at < 9 + 0 weeks' gestation; these were excluded, resulting in 4265 women who contributed data to the final analysis. The mean CRL and SD increased with GA almost linearly, and their relationship to GA is given by the following two equations (in which GA is in days and CRL in mm): mean CRL = -50.6562 + (0.815118 × GA) + (0.00535302 × GA(2) ); and SD of CRL = -2.21626 + (0.0984894 × GA). GA estimation is carried out according to the two equations: GA = 40.9041 + (3.21585 × CRL(0.5) ) + (0.348956 × CRL); and SD of GA = 2.39102 + (0.0193474 × CRL).

CONCLUSIONS

We have produced international prescriptive standards for early fetal linear size and ultrasound dating of pregnancy in the first trimester that can be used throughout the world.

Exploration of analysis methods for diagnostic imaging tests: problems with ROC AUC and confidence scores in CT colonography

BACKGROUND

Different methods of evaluating diagnostic performance when comparing diagnostic tests may lead to different results. We compared two such approaches, sensitivity and specificity with area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (ROC AUC) for the evaluation of CT colonography for the detection of polyps, either with or without computer assisted detection.

METHODS

In a multireader multicase study of 10 readers and 107 cases we compared sensitivity and specificity, using radiological reporting of the presence or absence of polyps, to ROC AUC calculated from confidence scores concerning the presence of polyps. Both methods were assessed against a reference standard. Here we focus on five readers, selected to illustrate issues in design and analysis. We compared diagnostic measures within readers, showing that differences in results are due to statistical methods.

RESULTS

Reader performance varied widely depending on whether sensitivity and specificity or ROC AUC was used. There were problems using confidence scores; in assigning scores to all cases; in use of zero scores when no polyps were identified; the bimodal non-normal distribution of scores; fitting ROC curves due to extrapolation beyond the study data; and the undue influence of a few false positive results. Variation due to use of different ROC methods exceeded differences between test results for ROC AUC.

CONCLUSIONS

The confidence scores recorded in our study violated many assumptions of ROC AUC methods, rendering these methods inappropriate. The problems we identified will apply to other detection studies using confidence scores. We found sensitivity and specificity were a more reliable and clinically appropriate method to compare diagnostic tests.

The likeness of fetal growth and newborn size across non-isolated populations in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study and Newborn Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Large differences exist in size at birth and in rates of impaired fetal growth worldwide. The relative effects of nutrition, disease, the environment, and genetics on these differences are often debated. In clinical practice, various references are often used to assess fetal growth and newborn size across populations and ethnic origins, whereas international standards for assessing growth in infants and children have been established. In the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, our aim was to assess fetal growth and newborn size in eight geographically defined urban populations in which the health and nutrition needs of mothers were met and adequate antenatal care was provided.

METHODS

For this study, fetal growth and newborn size were measured in two INTERGROWTH-21(st) component studies using prespecified markers and the same methods, equipment, and selection criteria. In the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS), we studied educated, affluent, healthy women, with adequate nutritional status who were at low risk of intrauterine growth restriction. The primary markers of fetal growth were ultrasound measurements of fetal crown-rump length at less than 14 weeks and 0 days of gestation and fetal head circumference from 14 weeks and 0 days to 40 weeks and 0 days of gestation, and birthlength for newborn size. In the concomitant, population-based Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS), we measured birthlength in all newborn babies from the eight geographically defined urban populations with the same methods, instruments, and staff as in FGLS. From this large NCSS cohort, we selected an FGLS-like subpopulation to match FGLS with the same eligibility criteria.

FINDINGS

Between May 14, 2009, and Aug 2, 2013, we enrolled 4607 women in FGLS and 59 137 women in NCSS. From NCSS, 20 486 (34·6%) women met the FGLS eligibility criteria, and constituted the FGLS-like subpopulation. With variance component analysis, only between 1·9% and 3·5% of the total variability in crown-rump length, fetal head circumference, and newborn birthlength could be attributed to between-site differences. With standardised site effect analysis in 16 gestational age windows from 9 weeks and 0 days of gestation to birth for the three measures (128 comparisons), only one was marginally higher than 0·5 SD of the standardised site difference range. Sensitivity analyses, excluding individual populations in turn from the pooling of all-site centiles across gestational ages, showed no noticeable effect on the 3rd, 50th, and 97th centiles derived from the remaining populations. Our populations were consistent at birth with those in the WHO Multicentre Growth Reference Study (MGRS). The mean birthlength for term newborn babies in that study was 49·5 cm (SD 1·9), which was very similar to that in the FGLS cohort (49·4 cm [1·9]) and the NCSS derived FGLS-like subpopulation (49·3 cm [1·8]).

INTERPRETATION

Fetal growth and newborn length are similar across diverse geographical settings when mothers' nutritional and health needs are met, and environmental constraints on growth are low. The findings for birthlength are in strong agreement with those of the WHO MGRS. These results provide the conceptual frame to create international standards for growth from conception to newborn baby, which will extend the present infant to childhood WHO MGRS standards.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

International standards for newborn weight, length, and head circumference by gestational age and sex: the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study of the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

BACKGROUND

In 2006, WHO published international growth standards for children younger than 5 years, which are now accepted worldwide. In the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, our aim was to complement them by developing international standards for fetuses, newborn infants, and the postnatal growth period of preterm infants.

METHODS

INTERGROWTH-21(st) is a population-based project that assessed fetal growth and newborn size in eight geographically defined urban populations. These groups were selected because most of the health and nutrition needs of mothers were met, adequate antenatal care was provided, and there were no major environmental constraints on growth. As part of the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS), a component of INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project, we measured weight, length, and head circumference in all newborn infants, in addition to collecting data prospectively for pregnancy and the perinatal period. To construct the newborn standards, we selected all pregnancies in women meeting (in addition to the underlying population characteristics) strict individual eligibility criteria for a population at low risk of impaired fetal growth (labelled the NCSS prescriptive subpopulation). Women had a reliable ultrasound estimate of gestational age using crown-rump length before 14 weeks of gestation or biparietal diameter if antenatal care started between 14 weeks and 24 weeks or less of gestation. Newborn anthropometric measures were obtained within 12 h of birth by identically trained anthropometric teams using the same equipment at all sites. Fractional polynomials assuming a skewed t distribution were used to estimate the fitted centiles.

FINDINGS

We identified 20,486 (35%) eligible women from the 59,137 pregnant women enrolled in NCSS between May 14, 2009, and Aug 2, 2013. We calculated sex-specific observed and smoothed centiles for weight, length, and head circumference for gestational age at birth. The observed and smoothed centiles were almost identical. We present the 3rd, 10th, 50th, 90th, and 97th centile curves according to gestational age and sex.

INTERPRETATION

We have developed, for routine clinical practice, international anthropometric standards to assess newborn size that are intended to complement the WHO Child Growth Standards and allow comparisons across multiethnic populations.

FUNDING

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Choosing important health outcomes for comparative effectiveness research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

A core outcome set (COS) is a standardised set of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, in all effectiveness trials for a specific health area. This will allow results of studies to be compared, contrasted and combined as appropriate, as well as ensuring that all trials contribute usable information. The COMET (Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials) Initiative aims to support the development, reporting and adoption of COS. Central to this is a publically accessible online resource, populated with all available COS. The aim of the review we report here was to identify studies that sought to determine which outcomes or domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition and to describe the methodological techniques used in these studies.

METHODS

We developed a multi-faceted search strategy for electronic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Methodology Register). We included studies that sought to determine which outcomes/domains to measure in all clinical trials in a specific condition.

RESULTS

A total of 250 reports relating to 198 studies were judged eligible for inclusion in the review. Studies covered various areas of health, most commonly cancer, rheumatology, neurology, heart and circulation, and dentistry and oral health. A variety of methods have been used to develop COS, including semi-structured discussion, unstructured group discussion, the Delphi Technique, Consensus Development Conference, surveys and Nominal Group Technique. The most common groups involved were clinical experts and non-clinical research experts. Thirty-one (16%) studies reported that the public had been involved in the process. The geographic locations of participants were predominantly North America (n = 164; 83%) and Europe (n = 150; 76%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review identified many health areas where a COS has been developed, but also highlights important gaps. It is a further step towards a comprehensive, up-to-date database of COS. In addition, it shows the need for methodological guidance, including how to engage key stakeholder groups, particularly members of the public.

Use of methods for specifying the target difference in randomised controlled trial sample size calculations: Two surveys of trialists' practice

BACKGROUND

Central to the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is a calculation of the number of participants needed. This is typically achieved by specifying a target difference, which enables the trial to identify a difference of a particular magnitude should one exist. Seven methods have been proposed for formally determining what the target difference should be. However, in practice, it may be driven by convenience or some other informal basis. It is unclear how aware the trialist community is of these formal methods or whether they are used.

PURPOSE

To determine current practice regarding the specification of the target difference by surveying trialists.

METHODS

Two surveys were conducted: (1) Members of the Society for Clinical Trials (SCT): participants were invited to complete an online survey through the society's email distribution list. Respondents were asked about their awareness, use of, and willingness to recommend methods; (2) Leading UK- and Ireland-based trialists: the survey was sent to UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered Clinical Trials Units, Medical Research Council UK Hubs for Trial Methodology Research, and the Research Design Services of the National Institute for Health Research. This survey also included questions about the most recent trial developed by the respondent's group.

RESULTS

Survey 1: Of the 1182 members on the SCT membership email distribution list, 180 responses were received (15%). Awareness of methods ranged from 69 (38%) for health economic methods to 162 (90%) for pilot study. Willingness to recommend among those who had used a particular method ranged from 56% for the opinion-seeking method to 89% for the review of evidence-base method. Survey 2: Of the 61 surveys sent out, 34 (56%) responses were received. Awareness of methods ranged from 33 (97%) for the review of evidence-base and pilot methods to 14 (41%) for the distribution method. The highest level of willingness to recommend among users was for the anchor method (87%). Based upon the most recent trial, the target difference was usually one viewed as important by a stakeholder group, mostly also viewed as a realistic difference given the interventions under evaluation, and sometimes one that led to an achievable sample size.

LIMITATIONS

The response rates achieved were relatively low despite the surveys being short, well presented, and having utilised reminders.

CONCLUSION

Substantial variations in practice exist with awareness, use, and willingness to recommend methods varying substantially. The findings support the view that sample size calculation is a more complex process than would appear to be the case from trial reports and protocols. Guidance on approaches for sample size estimation may increase both awareness and use of appropriate formal methods.

Red blood cell transfusion and mortality in trauma patients: risk-stratified analysis of an observational study

BACKGROUND

Haemorrhage is a common cause of death in trauma patients. Although transfusions are extensively used in the care of bleeding trauma patients, there is uncertainty about the balance of risks and benefits and how this balance depends on the baseline risk of death. Our objective was to evaluate the association of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion with mortality according to the predicted risk of death.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A secondary analysis of the CRASH-2 trial (which originally evaluated the effect of tranexamic acid on mortality in trauma patients) was conducted. The trial included 20,127 trauma patients with significant bleeding from 274 hospitals in 40 countries. We evaluated the association of RBC transfusion with mortality in four strata of predicted risk of death: <6%, 6%-20%, 21%-50%, and >50%. For this analysis the exposure considered was RBC transfusion, and the main outcome was death from all causes at 28 days. A total of 10,227 patients (50.8%) received at least one transfusion. We found strong evidence that the association of transfusion with all-cause mortality varied according to the predicted risk of death (p-value for interaction <0.0001). Transfusion was associated with an increase in all-cause mortality among patients with <6% and 6%-20% predicted risk of death (odds ratio [OR] 5.40, 95% CI 4.08-7.13, p<0.0001, and OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.96-2.73, p<0.0001, respectively), but with a decrease in all-cause mortality in patients with >50% predicted risk of death (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.47-0.74, p<0.0001). Transfusion was associated with an increase in fatal and non-fatal vascular events (OR 2.58, 95% CI 2.05-3.24, p<0.0001). The risk associated with RBC transfusion was significantly increased for all the predicted risk of death categories, but the relative increase was higher for those with the lowest (<6%) predicted risk of death (p-value for interaction <0.0001). As this was an observational study, the results could have been affected by different types of confounding. In addition, we could not consider haemoglobin in our analysis. In sensitivity analyses, excluding patients who died early; conducting propensity score analysis adjusting by use of platelets, fresh frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate; and adjusting for country produced results that were similar.

CONCLUSIONS

The association of transfusion with all-cause mortality appears to vary according to the predicted risk of death. Transfusion may reduce mortality in patients at high risk of death but increase mortality in those at low risk. The effect of transfusion in low-risk patients should be further tested in a randomised trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01746953.

Towards a framework for analysis of eye-tracking studies in the three dimensional environment: a study of visual search by experienced readers of endoluminal CT colonography

OBJECTIVE

Eye tracking in three dimensions is novel, but established descriptors derived from two-dimensional (2D) studies are not transferable. We aimed to develop metrics suitable for statistical comparison of eye-tracking data obtained from readers of three-dimensional (3D) "virtual" medical imaging, using CT colonography (CTC) as a typical example.

METHODS

Ten experienced radiologists were eye tracked while observing eight 3D endoluminal CTC videos. Subsequently, we developed metrics that described their visual search patterns based on concepts derived from 2D gaze studies. Statistical methods were developed to allow analysis of the metrics.

RESULTS

Eye tracking was possible for all readers. Visual dwell on the moving region of interest (ROI) was defined as pursuit of the moving object across multiple frames. Using this concept of pursuit, five categories of metrics were defined that allowed characterization of reader gaze behaviour. These were time to first pursuit, identification and assessment time, pursuit duration, ROI size and pursuit frequency. Additional subcategories allowed us to further characterize visual search between readers in the test population.

CONCLUSION

We propose metrics for the characterization of visual search of 3D moving medical images. These metrics can be used to compare readers' visual search patterns and provide a reproducible framework for the analysis of gaze tracking in the 3D environment.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This article describes a novel set of metrics that can be used to describe gaze behaviour when eye tracking readers during interpretation of 3D medical images. These metrics build on those established for 2D eye tracking and are applicable to increasingly common 3D medical image displays.

Ethnicity and outcome of young breast cancer patients in the United Kingdom: the POSH study

BACKGROUND

Black ethnic groups have a higher breast cancer mortality than Whites. American studies have identified variations in tumour biology and unequal health-care access as causative factors. We compared tumour pathology, treatment and outcomes in three ethnic groups in young breast cancer patients treated in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

Women aged ≤ 40 years at breast cancer diagnosis were recruited to the POSH national cohort study (MREC: 00/06/69). Personal characteristics, tumour pathology and treatment data were collected at diagnosis. Follow-up data were collected annually. Overall survival (OS) and distant relapse-free survival (DRFS) were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves, and multivariate analyses were performed using Cox regression.

RESULTS

Ethnicity data were available for 2915 patients including 2690 (91.0%) Whites, 118 (4.0%) Blacks and 87 (2.9%) Asians. Median tumour diameter at presentation was greater in Blacks than Whites (26.0 mm vs 22.0 mm, P=0.0103), and multifocal tumours were more frequent in both Blacks (43.4%) and Asians (37.0%) than Whites (28.9%). ER/PR/HER2-negative tumours were significantly more frequent in Blacks (26.1%) than Whites (18.6%, P=0.043). Use of chemotherapy was similarly high in all ethnic groups (89% B vs 88.6% W vs 89.7% A). A 5-year DRFS was significantly lower in Blacks than Asians (62.8% B vs 77.0% A, P=0.0473) or Whites (62.8 B% vs 77.0% W, P=0.0053) and a 5-year OS for Black patients, 71.1% (95% CI: 61.0-79.1%), was significantly lower than that of Whites (82.4%, 95% CI: 80.8-83.9%, W vs B: P=0.0160). In multivariate analysis, Black ethnicity had an effect on DRFS in oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive patients that is independent of body mass index, tumour size, grade or nodal status, HR: 1.60 (95% CI: 1.03-2.47, P=0.035).

CONCLUSION

Despite equal access to health care, young Black women in the United Kingdom have a significantly poorer outcome than White patients. Black ethnicity is an independent risk factor for reduced DRFS particularly in ER-positive patients.

A rapid questionnaire assessment of environmental exposures to pregnant women in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

Impaired fetal growth and preterm birth are the leading causes of neonatal and infant mortality worldwide and there is a growing scientific literature suggesting that environmental exposures during pregnancy may play a causal role in these outcomes. Our purpose was to assess the environmental exposure of the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS) participants in the multinational INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project. First, we developed a tool that could be used internationally to screen pregnant women for such exposures and administered it in eight countries on a subsample (n = 987) of the FGLS participants. The FGLS is a study of fetal growth among healthy pregnant women living in relatively affluent areas, at low risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and environmental exposures. We confirmed that most women were not exposed to major environmental hazards that could affect pregnancy outcomes according to the protocol's entry criteria. However, the instrument was able to identify some women that reported various environmental concerns in their homes such as peeling paint, high residential density (>1 person per room), presence of rodents or cockroaches (hence the use of pesticides), noise pollution and safety concerns. This screening tool was therefore useful for the purposes of the project and can be used to ascertain environmental exposures in studies in which the primary aim is not focused on environmental exposures. The instrument can be used to identify subpopulations for more in-depth assessment, (e.g. environmental and biological laboratory markers) to pinpoint areas requiring education, intervention or policy change.

Fetal biometry: how well can offline measurements from three-dimensional volumes substitute real-time two-dimensional measurements?

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility, accuracy and reproducibility of manipulating three-dimensional (3D) volume sets in order to reconstruct optimal two-dimensional (2D) planes for fetal biometry throughout gestation and compare them with those derived from real-time 2D scanning.

METHODS

Sixty-five fetuses were evaluated at a gestational age of 14-41 weeks. For each fetus a duplicate set of seven standard fetal measurements was taken by an experienced operator using 2D ultrasound and then 20 intentionally suboptimal 3D volumes from different predefined angles were captured and stored. These were manipulated and measured. The time taken to complete a full scan, with both 2D and 3D ultrasound, was recorded. All measurement differences were expressed as gestational age-specific Z-scores. For all comparisons Bland-Altman plots were used and limits of agreement were calculated. The means and variances of the measurements were tested with a paired t-test and Pitman's test for differences in variance, respectively. The difference between the time taken to perform a 2D and a 3D scan was tested using the Wilcoxon signed-ranks test.

RESULTS

Mean agreement between 2D and 3D ultrasound measurements was good, with no statistically significant differences (i.e. no systematic error) unless the head was facing anteroposteriorly, or the long axis of the femur was at 60-90° to the transducer. The variance (random error) for 3D measurements was similar to that for 2D measurements. Planes from some volumes could not be extracted (7% for head circumference, 9% for abdominal circumference and 11% for femur length). The median time required to perform a full fetal biometric scan was significantly higher for 3D than for 2D (3:04 min vs 1:57 min, respectively; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Fetal measurements derived from 3D volume acquisitions exhibited good agreement with those obtained by real-time 2D scanning, with no extra systematic or random error. However, they were slower to obtain, not all volumes were amenable to extraction of planes and measurements that came from a head facing anteroposteriorly or that were obtained with the long axis of the femur at 60-90° to the transducer were systematically smaller.

Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Critics of systematic reviews have argued that these studies often fail to inform clinical decision making because their results are far too general, that the data are sparse, such that findings cannot be applied to individual patients or for other decision making. While there is some consensus on methods for investigating statistical and methodological heterogeneity, little attention has been paid to clinical aspects of heterogeneity. Clinical heterogeneity, true effect heterogeneity, can be defined as variability among studies in the participants, the types or timing of outcome measurements, and the intervention characteristics. The objective of this project was to develop recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews.

METHODS

We used a modified Delphi technique with three phases: (1) pre-meeting item generation; (2) face-to-face consensus meeting in the form of a modified Delphi process; and (3) post-meeting feedback. We identified and invited potential participants with expertise in systematic review methodology, systematic review reporting, or statistical aspects of meta-analyses, or those who published papers on clinical heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Between April and June of 2011, we conducted phone calls with participants. In June 2011 we held the face-to-face focus group meeting in Ann Arbor, Michigan. First, we agreed upon a definition of clinical heterogeneity: Variations in the treatment effect that are due to differences in clinically related characteristics. Next, we discussed and generated recommendations in the following 12 categories related to investigating clinical heterogeneity: the systematic review team, planning investigations, rationale for choice of variables, types of clinical variables, the role of statistical heterogeneity, the use of plotting and visual aids, dealing with outlier studies, the number of investigations or variables, the role of the best evidence synthesis, types of statistical methods, the interpretation of findings, and reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical heterogeneity is common in systematic reviews. Our recommendations can help guide systematic reviewers in conducting valid and reliable investigations of clinical heterogeneity. Findings of these investigations may allow for increased applicability of findings of systematic reviews to the management of individual patients.

Reporting medical research

Accurate, complete and timely publication of research studies is an integral part of a responsible research conduct. Following the reporting guidelines helps in preparing high quality research papers, facilitates peer review, and increases the chances of paper acceptance by a suitable journal. The EQUATOR Network website (www.equator-network.org) provides a collection of reporting guidelines and other resources helping researchers to publish their research studies.

Standardisation and quality control of ultrasound measurements taken in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

Meticulous standardisation and ongoing monitoring of adherence to measurement protocols during data collection are essential to ensure consistency and to minimise systematic error in multicentre studies. Strict ultrasound fetal biometric measurement protocols are used in the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project so that data of the highest quality from different centres can be compared and potentially pooled. A central Ultrasound Quality Unit (USQU) has been set up to oversee this process. After initial training and standardisation, the USQU monitors the performance of all ultrasonographers involved in the project by continuously assessing the quality of the images and the consistency of the measurements produced. Ultrasonographers are identified when they exceed preset maximum allowable differences. Corrective action is then taken in the form of retraining or simply advice regarding changes in practice. This paper describes the procedures used, which can form a model for research settings involving ultrasound measurements.

Statistical considerations for the development of prescriptive fetal and newborn growth standards in the INTERGROWTH-21st Project

The INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project has in its mandate to develop prescriptive standards for fetal, neonatal and preterm post-neonatal growth. The project comprises three components: the Fetal Growth Longitudinal Study (FGLS), the Preterm Postnatal Follow-up Study (PPFS), and the Newborn Cross-Sectional Study (NCSS). We consider here the statistical aspects of the three components as they relate to the construction of these standards, in particular the sample size, and outline the principles that will guide the planned main analyses.

Managing data for the international, multicentre INTERGROWTH-21st Project

The INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project data management was structured incorporating both a centralised and decentralised system for the eight study centres, which all used the same database and standardised data collection instruments, manuals and processes. Each centre was responsible for the entry and validation of their country-specific data, which were entered onto a centralised system maintained by the Data Coordinating Unit in Oxford. A comprehensive data management system was designed to handle the very large volumes of data. It contained internal validations to prevent incorrect and inconsistent values being captured, and allowed online data entry by local Data Management Units, as well as real-time management of recruitment and data collection by the Data Coordinating Unit in Oxford. To maintain data integrity, only the Data Coordinating Unit in Oxford had access to all the eight centres' data, which were continually monitored. All queries identified were raised with the relevant local data manager for verification and correction, if necessary. The system automatically logged an audit trail of all updates to the database with the date and name of the person who made the changes. These rigorous processes ensured that the data collected in the INTERGROWTH-21(st) Project were of exceptionally high quality.

Identifying women with undetected ovarian cancer: independent and external validation of QCancer(®) (Ovarian) prediction model

Early identification of ovarian cancer is an unresolved challenge and the predictive value of single symptoms is limited. We evaluated the performance of QCancer(®) (Ovarian) prediction model for predicting the risk of ovarian cancer in a UK cohort of general practice patients. A total of 1.1 million patients registered with a general practice surgery between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2008, aged 30-84 years with 735 ovarian cancer cases, were included in the analysis. Ovarian cancer was defined as incident diagnosis of ovarian cancer during the 2 years after study entry. The results from this independent and external validation of QCancer(®) (Ovarian) prediction model demonstrated good performance on a large cohort of general practice patients. QCancer(®) (Ovarian) had very good discrimination with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.86 and explained 59.9% of the variation. QCancer(®) (Ovarian) was well calibrated across all tenths of risk and over all age. The 10% of women with the highest predicted risks included 64% of all ovarian cancer diagnoses over the next 2 years. QCancer(®) (Ovarian) appears to be a useful tool for identifying undetected cases of ovarian cancer in primary care in the UK for early referral and investigation.

Adherence of trials of operative intervention to the CONSORT statement extension for non-pharmacological treatments: a comparative before and after study

INTRODUCTION

Use of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has been shown to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials and it is endorsed by leading surgical journals. The CONSORT statement for non-pharmacological treatment (CONSORT-NPT) provides specific items to aid in the reporting of trials of operative intervention. This study compares the reporting practice of trials of operative intervention published in time periods before and after publication of the CONSORT-NPT statement.

METHODS

A 30-point checklist containing the salient CONSORT-NPT items was designed and the adherence of trials meeting the inclusion criteria determined independently by two authors.

RESULTS

There was a significant improvement of 3.95 points in the mean CONSORT-NPT score from 2004 to 2010 (95% confidence interval: 3.61-4.29, p<0.001). This related specifically to items present in the original CONSORT statement rather than to CONSORT-NPT items, which remained poorly reported in 2010. The mean CONSORT-NPT score was 17.5 (standard deviation [SD]: 4.5) for trials published in CONSORT endorsing journals compared with 15.6 (SD: 4.0) for those that did not mention endorsement of the CONSORT statement although this was not a significant difference (p=0.064).

CONCLUSIONS

Although there has been a significant improvement in the reporting of trials of operative intervention published in the surgical literature since 2004, items specific to the CONSORT-NPT extension remain underreported. Improved awareness of this important addition to the CONSORT statement throughout the surgical community and its endorsement by surgical journals will help to improve the reporting practice of trials of operative intervention.

Intra- and interobserver variability in fetal ultrasound measurements

OBJECTIVE

To assess intra- and interobserver variability of fetal biometry measurements throughout pregnancy.

METHODS

A total of 175 scans (of 140 fetuses) were prospectively performed at 14-41 weeks of gestation ensuring an even distribution throughout gestation. From among three experienced sonographers, a pair of observers independently acquired a duplicate set of seven standard measurements for each fetus. Differences between and within observers were expressed in measurement units (mm), as a percentage of fetal dimensions and as gestational age-specific Z-scores. For all comparisons, Bland-Altman plots were used to quantify limits of agreement.

RESULTS

When using measurement units (mm) to express differences, both intra- and interobserver variability increased with gestational age. However, when measurement of variability took into account the increasing fetal size and was expressed as a percentage or Z-score, it remained constant throughout gestation. When expressed as a percentage or Z-score, the 95% limits of agreement for intraobserver difference for head circumference (HC) were ± 3.0% or 0.67; they were ± 5.3% or 0.90 and ± 6.6% or 0.94 for abdominal circumference (AC) and femur length (FL), respectively. The corresponding values for interobserver differences were ± 4.9% or 0.99 for HC, ± 8.8% or 1.35 for AC and ± 11.1% or 1.43 for FL.

CONCLUSIONS

Although intra- and interobserver variability increases with advancing gestation when expressed in millimeters, both are constant as a percentage of the fetal dimensions or when reported as a Z-score. Thus, measurement variability should be considered when interpreting fetal growth rates.