Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33355918›Full record

ArticleThe patient2021

Patient and Public Involvement Refines the Design of ProtOeus: A Proposed Phase II Trial of Proton Beam Therapy in Oesophageal Cancer.

Owen J Nicholas, Olivier Joseph, Annie Keane, Kate Cleary, Sue H Campbell, Sarah H Gwynne, Tom Crosby, Ganesh Radhakrishna, Maria A Hawkins

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The patient, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 29% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Impact of patient information format on the experience of cancer patients treated with radiotherapy.Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology · 2024
    Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Owen J NicholasSouth West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Sketty Lane, Swansea, SA2 8QA, UK. owen.nicholas@wales.nhs.uk.
Olivier JosephManchester University NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Annie KeaneManchester University NHS Trust, Manchester, UK.
Kate ClearyPublic and Patient Involvement and Engagement, Wales Cancer Research Centre, Cardiff University, Wales, UK.
Sue H CampbellPatient Representative, Monmouth, UK.
Sarah H GwynneSouth West Wales Cancer Centre, Singleton Hospital, Sketty Lane, Swansea, SA2 8QA, UK.
Tom CrosbyVelindre University NHS Trust, Cardiff, UK.
Ganesh RadhakrishnaThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, UK.
Maria A HawkinsCRUK MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust · GBSingleton Hospital · GBCardiff University · GBCRUK/MRC Oxford Institute for Radiation Oncology · GBThe Christie NHS Foundation Trust · GBVelindre NHS Trust · GB

Funding

Department of HealthMedical Research Council MC_PC_12001/2
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNeoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer significantly improves overall survival but is associated with severe post-operative complications. Proton beam therapy may reduce these toxicities by sparing normal tissues compared with standard radiotherapy. ProtOeus is a proposed randomised phase II study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer that compares proton beam therapy to standard radiotherapy techniques. As proton beam therapy services are often centralised in academic centres in major cities, proton beam therapy trials raise distinct challenges including patient acceptance of travelling for proton beam therapy, coordination of treatments with local centres and ensuring equity of access for patients.

methodsFocus groups were held early in the trial development process to establish patients' views on the trial proposal. Topics discussed include perception of proton beam therapy, patient acceptability of the trial pathway and design, patient-facing materials, and common clinical scenarios. Focus groups were led by the investigators and facilitated by patient involvement teams from the institutions who are involved in this research. Responses for each topic were analysed, and fed back to the trial's development group.

resultsThree focus groups were held in separate locations in the UK (Manchester, Cardiff, Wigan). Proton beam therapy was perceived as superior to standard radiotherapy making the trial attractive. Patients felt strongly that travel costs should be reimbursed to ensure equity of access to proton beam therapy. They were very supportive of a shorter treatment schedule and felt that toxicity reduction was the most important endpoint. DISCUSSION AND

conclusionsIncorporating patient views early in the trial development process resulted in significant trial design refinements including travel/accommodation provisions, choice of primary endpoint, randomisation ratio and fractionation schedule. Focus groups are a reproducible and efficient method of incorporating the patient and public voice into research.

Indexed as

Esophageal NeoplasmsProton TherapyClinical Trials, Phase II as TopicHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topic

Identifiers

PMID33355918
OpenAlexW3115693697

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.