BackgroundHead and neck cancer is an important cause of ill health. Survival appears to be improving but the reasons for this are unclear. They could include evolving aetiology, modifications in care, improvements in treatment or changes in lifestyle behaviour. Observational studies are required to explore survival trends and identify outcome predictors.MethodsWe are identifying people with a new diagnosis of head and neck cancer. We obtain consent that includes agreement to collect longitudinal data, store samples and record linkage. Prior to treatment we give participants three questionnaires on health and lifestyle, quality of life and sexual history. We collect blood and saliva samples, complete a clinical data capture form and request a formalin fixed tissue sample. At four and twelve months we complete further data capture forms and send participants further quality of life questionnaires.DiscussionThis large clinical cohort of people with head and neck cancer brings together clinical data, patient-reported outcomes and biological samples in a single co-ordinated resource for translational and prognostic research.

OBJECTIVE The GO2 randomized clinical trial sought to optimize chemotherapy dosing in older and/or frail patients with advanced gastroesophageal cancer, and explored baseline geriatric assessment (GA) as a tool for treatment decision-making. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, noninferiority, open-label randomized trial took place at oncology clinics in the United Kingdom with nurse-led geriatric health assessment. Patients were recruited for whom full-dose combination chemotherapy was considered unsuitable because of advanced age and/or frailty.INTERVENTIONS There were 2 randomizations that were performed: CHEMO-INTENSITY compared oxaliplatin/capecitabine at Level A (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m 2 on day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m 2 twice daily on days 1-21, on a 21-day cycle), Level B (doses 0.8 times A), or Level C (doses 0.6 times A). Alternatively, if the patient and clinician agreed the indication for chemotherapy was uncertain, the patient could instead enter CHEMO-BSC, comparing Level C vs best supportive care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESFirst, broad noninferiority of the lower doses vs reference (Level A) was assessed using a permissive boundary of 34 days reduction in progression-free survival (PFS) (hazard ratio, HR = 1.34), selected as acceptable by a forum of patients and clinicians. Then, the patient experience was compared using Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), which combines efficacy, toxic effects, quality of life, and patient value/acceptability. For CHEMO-BSC, the main outcome measure was overall survival.RESULTS A total of 514 patients entered CHEMO-INTENSITY, of whom 385 (75%) were men and 299 (58%) were severely frail, with median age 76 years. Noninferior PFS was confirmed for Levels B vs A (HR = 1.09 [95% CI, 0.89-1.32]) and C vs A (HR = 1.10 [95% CI, 0.90-1.33]). Level C produced less toxic effects and better OTU than A or B. No subgroup benefited from higher doses: Level C produced better OTU even in younger or less frail patients. A total of 45 patients entered the CHEMO-BSC randomization: overall survival was nonsignificantly longer with chemotherapy: median 6.1 vs 3.0 months (HR = 0.69 [95% CI, 0.32-1.48], P = .34). In multivariate analysis in 522 patients with all variables available, baseline frailty, quality of life, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were independently associated with OTU, and can be combined in a model to estimate the probability of different outcomes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This phase 3 randomized clinical trial found that reduced-intensity chemotherapy provided a better patient experience without significantly compromising cancer control and should be considered for older and/or frail patients. Baseline geriatric assessment can help predict the utility of chemotherapy but did not identify a group benefiting from higher-dose treatment.

Plain English summaryThe National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Research Design Service (RDS) for Yorkshire and Humber has been running a public involvement funding scheme since 2008. This scheme awards researchers a small amount of money to help them get involvement from patients and/or the public. Involvement activities take place at the time when researchers are planning studies, and when they are completing application forms to request funding for a proposed research project. After the public involvement activities researchers are asked to write a report for the RDS describing what they did with the public involvement funding.This study analysed those reports using an approach which included members of a public involvement panel in the data analysis process. The aim of the work was to see what the views and experiences of researchers who received funding were, and what might be learned for the future of the scheme. Twenty five reports were analysed. Four main themes were identified, these described: the added value of public involvement; aspects to consider when planning and designing public involvement; different roles of public contributors; and aspects of valuing public member contributions. The group approach to analysis was successful in enabling involvement of a variety of individuals in the process. The findings of the study provide evidence of the value of public involvement during the development of applications for research funding. The results also indicate that researchers recognise the variety in potential roles for the public in research, and acknowledge how involvement adds value to studies.Abstract Background A regional Research Design Service, funded by the National Institute for Health Research, introduced a small grant in 2008, to support public involvement (often known as patient and public involvement [PPI]) activities during the development of applications for research funding. Successful applicants are requested to submit a report detailing how the grant money was used, including a description of the aims and outcomes of the public involvement activities. The purpose of this study was to analyse the content of these reports. We aimed to find out what researcher views and experiences of public involvement activities were, and what lessons might be learned. Methods We used an innovative method of data analysis, drawing on group participatory approaches, qualitative content analysis, and Framework Analysis to sort and label the content of the reports. We developed a framework of categories and sub-categories (or themes and sub-themes) from this process. Results Twenty five documents were analysed. Four main themes were identified in the data: the added value of public involvement; planning and designing involvement; the role of public members; and valuing public member contributions. Within these themes, sub-themes related to the timing of involvement (prior to the research study/intended during the research study), and also specific benefits of public involvement such as: valida...

4006 Background: Many pts with aGOAC are elderly and/or frail. We previously compared epirubin/ oxaliplatin/ capecitabine (EOCap) vs OCap vs Cap in a pick-the-winner study and found OCap best. GO2 was designed to find the optimum dose of OCap and to explore the use of an objective baseline geriatric assessment to individualize doses for maximum Overall Treatment Utility (OTU), a composite of clinical benefit, tolerability, QL and patient value. Methods: Pts with aGOAC were eligible if unsuitable for full-dose EOCap due to age or frailty, but fit for OCap; GFR ≥ 30, bili <2x ULN. Baseline assessment included global QL; symptoms; functional scales; comorbidity; frailty. Randomization was 1:1:1 to dose Level A (Ox 130 mg/m2d1, Cap 625 mg/m2bd d1-21, q21d), B (80% Level A doses) or C (60% Level A doses). Pts with GFR 30-50 ml/min or bili 1.5-2.0 xULN received 75% of the allocated dose of Cap. At 9 wks, pts were scored for OTU. Continuation thereafter was based on clinical judgement. Non-inferiority (vs A) was assessed using PFS censored at 12 months, with boundary HR 1.34 (based on discussion with pts and clinicians), needing 284 PFS events per 2-way comparison. Baseline fitness was assessed as predictive of OTU, overall and by interaction with dose level. Results: 514 pts were randomised, 2014-17, at 61 UK centres. Clinical trial information: 44687907. Non-inferiority of PFS is confirmed for Level B vs A (HR 1.09, CI 0.89-1.32) and for Level C vs A (HR 1.10, CI 0.90-1.33). Level C pts had less toxicity and better OTU outcomes than A or B. When analysed by baseline age, frailty and PS, Level C produced the best OTU even in younger, less frail and better PS patients; no group was identified who benefit more from the higher dose levels. Conclusions: This is the largest RCT to date specifically investigating frail and/or elderly aGOAC pts, and should guide future treatment. The lowest dose tested was non-inferior in terms of PFS and produced less toxicity and better overall treatment utility.[Table: see text]