大和市, Japan

Effects of Online Metacognitive Training Group on Distressing Beliefs

Psychosis is described as disruptions to a person's beliefs and view of the world that make it challenging for them to establish what is a reality. Some people with psychosis experience persecutory delusions, which is a distressing belief that harm will happen to them by others. Research indicated that certain errors in thinking (called cognitive biases, e.g.: jumping to conclusions) have been linked to psychotic symptoms in at high risk from psychosis. Studies reveal that certain errors in thinking may be causal factors for the development and maintenance of delusions. National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends psychological interventions such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for a Psychosis (CBTp), but the efficacy of CBTp has been questioned, and small uptake by clients has also been discovered. This research is based on the metacognitive training delivered in groups, which is a psycho-educational programme targeting these thinking errors in psychosis. Research indicates that this training can be delivered online in a group to participants with psychosis, hence it offered a promising treatment approach in times of pandemic. The participants will be recruited from an Early Intervention in Psychosis service in Kent and will take part in a ten week MCT or Treatment as Usual (TAU). The MCT will consist of spending 90 minutes a week in a small online group setting working through a series of workshops. Participants will also be asked to complete homework each week and they will be supported with this. Interviews and questionnaires regarding symptoms and thinking errors will be used before and immediately after the intervention. The participants who attended the group and improved in their symptoms and thinking errors will be invited to an interview asking them what worked for them and how they found the group.

Supported Rescue Packs Post-discharge in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

What is the problem being addressed? Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common lung condition in the United Kingdom, with a prevalence of 4.5% in population ≥40 years and rising4. In addition to daily symptoms such as cough and breathlessness that limit physical activity, people living with COPD are prone to unpredictable deteriorations in their health called 'exacerbations'. Exacerbations are sometimes severe enough to lead to hospital admission and are often driven by infections. A systematic review of patient outcomes in COPD identified exacerbations, especially severe hospitalised exacerbations, as the aspect of COPD that patients found most difficult to live with. Prior to the pandemic there were around 115,000 admissions to hospital with COPD exacerbations per annum6 and admissions are now returning to that level. Exacerbations are more common in the winter with greater circulation of respiratory viruses, and thus the burden of hospitalised exacerbations contributes to winter National Health Service (NHS) bed pressures and cost to the NHS. The annual healthcare cost for people with moderate and severe exacerbation of COPD in England was estimated to be nearly £1 billion in 20227. A particular problem after a hospitalised COPD exacerbation is re-admission to hospital. The National Asthma and COPD Audit Programme (NACAP) has shown that the re-admission rate is 23% at 30 days and 43% at 90 days2. A systematic review conducted by the authors identified comorbidities, previous exacerbations and increased length of stay as risk factors for 30- and 90-day all-cause readmission5. There are many interventions that can reduce the risk of COPD exacerbations but these are incompletely effective8. There is also evidence to suggest that earlier intervention with standard exacerbation treatment of antibiotics and/or corticosteroids (called a 'rescue pack') can hasten recovery, with a lessened chance of hospital admission9. As part of standard NHS care2, patients with COPD should have a 'discharge bundle' implemented, although this is often poorly delivered and has not been definitively shown to impact outcomes (likely because the wrong outcomes were chosen, and the bundle was poorly implemented)10. The provision of rescue packs is not a standard component of discharge bundles but these are sometimes provided according to local service preference3. Additionally, in usual clinical practice, some patients will have been prescribed rescue packs from primary care (GP) or a community respiratory team (CRT) prior to being hospitalised with COPD. Furthermore, patients may or may not have access to rescue packs from the GP or the CRT after hospital discharge. Although rescue packs are part of NICE guidance2, the available evidence suggests they are not effective unless provided in the context of a more comprehensive management/education plan that supports patients in their appropriate use11. In practice this usually does not happen3, with evidence that a patient with COPD will receive variable or often no support; with some patients receiving rescue packs on demand without considering antimicrobial resistance, predictable side-effects from steroid overuse, or reviewing appropriateness. The investigators have pilot data that show receiving a rescue pack on hospital discharge is controversial as the hospital team is not, in general, the team that provides ongoing support to use these. There is thus recognised over- and under-use of rescue packs, associated harm from these medicines and variable provision. Providing a rescue pack, with education on how to use and support for when to use, has not been specifically tested in the high-risk 90-day period for readmission following a hospitalised exacerbation. It is the investigators' hypothesis that rescue packs on discharge in addition to a comprehensive self-supported management plan, consisting of the Asthma+Lung UK written management plan and twice weekly automated phone and or text messaging during this 90 day high risk period, will reduce readmissions by 20% compared to standard care. Why is this research important in terms of improving the health of patients and health and care services? Reducing re-admission through provision of supported rescue pack use would benefit people living with COPD and the NHS. A reduction in readmissions of 20% could save the NHS £86 million per quarter (£344 million per annum). Conversely, demonstrating that rescue packs are not effective when used in this way will address controversy about use, and reduce pressure on antimicrobial resistance and harm from over-use of oral corticosteroids. Integrated care systems are rapidly developing out-of-hospital support for people with exacerbations of COPD including digitally supported virtual wards. The proposed trial will define the role of supported rescue pack provision in the design and implementation of these programmes, enhancing their ability to reduce demands on urgent and acute care. Whether positive or negative, this trial will help to reduce the current variation in service provision by providing a definitive answer to the study question. Furthermore, preventing exacerbations of COPD have been identified as a priority by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnership (PSP)12.

Amivantamab, Lazertinib and Bevacizumab in Patients With EGFR-mutant Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer With Progression on Previous Third-generation EGFR-TKI

ARISTOCRAT: Blinded Trial of Temozolomide +/- Cannabinoids

This is a phase II, multi-centre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial to compare the cannabinoid Nabiximols (Sativex®) with placebo in patients with recurrent MGMT methylated glioblastoma treated with temozolomide (TMZ). The trial will randomise a target number of 234 patients on a 2:1 basis to receive either Nabiximols or Nabiximols-matched placebo, in combination with standard TMZ. Patients will be followed up at 4-weekly assessments for a minimum of 52 weeks from the start of trial treatment or until death, whichever is sooner. MRI scanning will be performed at screening, week 10, week 22, week 30, then 3-monthly after commencing trial treatment as per standard practice. The trial includes an initial feasibility study of 40 patients to confirm safety, compliance and achievability of planned target recruitment. There are no formal criteria for evaluation of feasibility but once 40 patients have been recruited, the independent Data Monitoring Committee will review the adverse event data, details on protocol treatment received, monthly recruitment rates and projected recruitment in order to make recommendations on trial continuation. The current phase II trial design will enable potential expansion of recruitment into a phase III trial, should the emerging phase II results warrant this development. The trial will be linked to the Tessa Jowell BRAIN MATRIX (TJBM) programme; utilising TJBM infrastructure, opening the same participating sites, and aligning the data collection and Quality of Life assessments already embedded in TJBM. This collaboration will allow data sharing within the platform thereby streamlining patient entry and provide additional oversight through TJBM. Patients recruited to TJBM who are potentially eligible for ARISTOCRAT may be identified and suggested to sites for consideration to the trial.

Personalized Medicine for Advanced Biliary Cancer Patients

This is a Phase 3, multicentre, randomised, open-label trial to evaluate whether the introduction of molecular targeted therapy (MTT) as maintenance after 4 cycles of standard-of-care first-line systemic therapy (1L SoC) is superior to continuation of 1L-SoC in the treatment of patients with ABC. The trial is composed of two phases: (i) An initial screening phase to identify a suitable patient population, and (ii) a randomised comparative trial. The aim of the screening phase is to identify a medically suitable population, to obtain a molecular profile of the patient's tumour, to collect baseline data concerning patient demographics and disease characteristics and to obtain pre-treatment blood and tumour samples for further translational research. A genetic profile will be obtained from tumour-derived DNA and RNA samples by next-generation sequencing and from circulating tumour DNA. The trial Molecular Tumour Board will determine whether each patient harbours a targetable molecular alteration for one or more of the trial MTTs. Patients with disease control after 4 cycles of 1L-SoC, who did not experience limiting toxicity, and whose tumour harbours at least one targetable molecular alteration, will be invited to participate in the randomised phase of the trial in which 159 eligible patients will be randomised (2:1) to receive either maintenance therapy with a matched MTT or to continue 1L-SoC treatment.

A Trial of 5 Fraction Prostate SBRT Versus 5 Fraction Prostate and Pelvic Nodal SBRT

This study will look at the safety of curative radiotherapy to the prostate and lymph glands given in 5 visits, in men with high risk localised prostate cancer. The purpose of the research is to test an advanced type of external beam radiotherapy called stereotactic body radiotherapy (also known as SBRT) in 1128 participants with high risk localised prostate cancer (that is, prostate cancer that has not spread beyond the prostate gland but is at high risk of growing quickly or spreading). Importantly, this treatment delivers a potentially curative dose of radiotherapy in only 5 treatments over two weeks. Half the participants in the trial will receive radiotherapy to the prostate, the other half will have radiotherapy to the prostate as well as the surrounding lymph nodes. The investigators will follow patients in the trial for at least three and half years to see which treatment is best. The investigators will be looking at whether it is safe to give this treatment by reviewing any side-effects that occur and also assessing whether giving SBRT to the lymph nodes as well as the prostate reduces the chance of prostate cancer returning. The treatment will take place at NHS radiotherapy centres that are experienced in giving SBRT and radiotherapy to the pelvic nodes, and have been quality assured to deliver these treatments

Adagrasib in Patients With KRASG12C-mutant NSCLC Who Are Elderly or Have Poor Performance Status

RCT of Implantable Defibrillators in Patients with Non Ischemic Cardiomyopathy, Scar and Severe Systolic Heart Failure

Patients with Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy (NICM) have a higher risk of experiencing serious abnormal heart rhythms that might be life-threatening. Current guidelines recommend fitting a device that can correct these serious heart rhythms (Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD)). However, research studies have shown that 90% of patients who have an ICD will never use it because they won't experience any serious heart rhythms. A recent large trial (DANISH) of over one thousand patients with severe Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy has called the current guidelines into question. The trial concluded that for patients who received an ICD, there was no difference in the likelihood of dying when compared to patients that didn't have an ICD fitted. As a result, many doctors are choosing not to implant an ICD in patients with this type of heart failure, as they believe there is no overall survival benefit. However, there are clues that some patients with NICM may still benefit from an ICD, even though the headline results suggest they are not necessary. It's likely that it's the patients who are at increased risk of having a serious abnormal heart rhythm that stand to benefit from ICDs. But having an ICD fitted carries with it a significant risk of problems developing e.g. bleeding, infection, lead problems, and inappropriate shocks. These risks may not outweigh the benefits and it is this question which BRITISH will address. The study will randomly assign (like the toss of a coin), half the study participants to receive an ICD and the other half to no ICD. Both groups will be followed up to decide whether having an ICD fitted reduces the chances of dying.

Pre-therapeutic MRI Assessment of Early-Stage Rectal Cancer and Significant Rectal Polyps to Avoid Major Resectional Surgery

Many patients diagnosed with Early Rectal Cancer (ERC) are currently over-treated. Most patients with confirmed ERC will undergo an MRI, but some are not correctly identified in endoscopy and immediately removed. Of those who undergo MRI, 69% are over-staged and undergo major surgery or unnecessary radiotherapy when local excision surgery to preserve the patients rectum, and quality of life, would have been possible. <10% of patients with ERC are staged accurately and offered local excision, with the majority who are staged as ERC on MRI still undergoing major surgery, likely due to uncertainty in the staging report. Prof Gina Brown developed a more accurate radiological staging system (PRESERVE) or ERC, whereby T2 tumours are identified and classified according to the degree of preservation of the individual layers of the rectal wall. It has been shown that PRESERVE enabled better identification of ERC suitable for local excision from the expected 30% to 89% accuracy. This improved accuracy was replicated in a further study by training a cohort of 12 radiologists. It is predicted that wider adoption of PRESERVE will result in increased organ-preserving surgery from the current rates of 10% to >50%.

Tracking Mutations in Cell Free Tumour DNA to Predict Relapse in Early Colorectal Cancer

TRACC Part B: Despite potentially curative surgery +/- adjuvant chemotherapy, a proportional of patients with early stage CRC will experience disease relapse. Current tools for surveillance, e.g., blood sampling for tumour markers (CEA) are neither sensitive nor specific. We hypothesise that detection of mutations in circulating free DNA (cfDNA) in plasma can predict relapse in patients with early stage CRC. Circulating cell free tumour DNA (ctDNA) maintains the same mutations that are present in tumour. In colorectal cancer CRC, primary tumours and& metastases exhibit high genomic concordance. Therefore the TRACC study TRACC Part B is investigating whether serial blood samples taken from in patients with stage II and III fully resected early stage CRC colorectal cancer that have undergone potentially curative surgery, blood samples to can be used to detect and& quantify ctDNA may in order to identify minimal residual disease MRD and predict relapse earlier than existing methods. CtDNA may ultimately help identify a subset of patients that are or are unlikely to benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and could therefore safely spare some patients from receiving unnecessary chemotherapy & its associated side-effects. TRACC Part C: We hypothesis that ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy administration will enable biomarker driven selection of patients who would and would not benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy and thereby reduce the proportion of patient receiving unnecessary adjuvant chemotherapy, reducing the potential side effects associated with it, but without compromising disease free survival (DFS). : This part of the study will use tThe blood test ctDNA result from a post-operative blood sample willto guide adjuvant chemotherapy treatment decisions. The study aims to demonstrate that athe de -escalation strategy of ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy is non-inferior to standard of care treatment as measured by 3 year DFS in patients with high risk stage II and stage III CRC, in those who have no evidence of MRD (ctDNA negative). after surgery for patients with colorectal cancer who are following the standard of care pathway. Patients are randomised at the post- operative time point to: Arm A (standard of care adjuvant chemotherapy), or Arm B (ctDNA guided adjuvant chemotherapy) arm. For the ct DNA guided arm, patients who are ctDNA negative at this time point will have their chemotherapy de-escalated.