ArticleClinical and translational radiation oncology2018
Methodology for tissue sample collection within a translational sub-study of the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016), a large randomised phase III trial in localised prostate cancer.
Article in Clinical and translational radiation oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis article presents the methodology for tissue sample collection in Trans-CHHiP, the main translational study within the CHHiP (Conventional or Hypofractionated High dose intensity modulated radiotherapy in Prostate cancer, ISRCTN 97182923) trial. The CHHiP trial randomised 3216 men with localised prostate cancer to 3 different radiotherapy fractionation schedules. Trans-CHHiP aims to identify biomarkers of fraction sensitivity.
methodsWe outline the process of tissue collection, including central review by a study-specific specialist uropathologist and comparison of the centrally-assigned Gleason grade group with that assigned by the recruiting-centre pathologist.
results2047 patients provided tissue from 107 pathology departments between August 2012 and April 2014. A highly motivated Clinical Trials Unit chasing samples and a central Trans-CHHiP group that regularly reviewed progress were important for successful sample collection. Agreement in Gleason grade group assigned by the recruiting centre pathologist and the central study-specific uropathologist occurred in 886 out of 1854 (47.8%) cases. Key lessons learned were the need for prospective consent for tissue collection when recruiting patients to the main trial, and the importance of Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) integration into the initial trial site agreement.
conclusionsThis methodology enabled collection of 2047 patient samples from a large randomised radiotherapy trial. Central pathological review is important to minimise subjectivity in Gleason grade grouping and the impact of grade shift.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.