PURPOSE High-grade nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease. Treatments include intravesical maintenance Bacillus Calmette-Guerin (mBCG) and radical cystectomy (RC). We wanted to understand whether a randomized trial comparing these options was possible. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a two-arm, prospective multicenter randomized study to determine the feasibility in Bacillus Calmette-Guerin-naive patients. Participants had new high-risk HRNMIBC suitable for both treatments. Random assignment was stratified by age, sex, center, stage, presence of carcinoma in situ, and prior low-risk bladder cancer. Qualitative work investigated how to maintain equipoise. The primary outcome was the number of patients screened, eligible, recruited, and randomly assigned. RESULTS We screened 407 patients, approached 185, and obtained consent from 51 (27.6%) patients. Of these, one did not proceed and therefore 50 were randomly assigned (1:1). In the mBCG arm, 23/25 (92.0%) patients received mBCG, four had nonmuscle invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) after induction, three had NMIBC at 4 months, and four received RC. At closure, two patients had metastatic BC. In the RC arm, 20 (80.0%) participants received cystectomy, including five (25.0%) with no tumor, 13 (65.0%) with HRNMIBC, and two (10.0%) with muscle invasion in their specimen. At follow-up, all patients in the RC arm were free of disease. Adverse events were mostly mild and equally distributed (15/23 [65.2%] patients with mBCG and 13/20 [65.0%] patients with RC). The quality of life (QOL) of both arms was broadly similar at 12 months. CONCLUSION A randomized controlled trial comparing mBCG and RC will be challenging to recruit into. Around 10% of patients with high-risk HRNMIBC have a lethal disease and may be better treated by primary radical treatment. Conversely, many are suitable for bladder preservation and may maintain their prediagnosis QOL.

IntroductionHigh-risk non-muscle invasive bladder cancer (HRNMIBC) is a heterogeneous disease that can be difficult to predict. While around 25% of cancers progress to invasion and metastases, the remaining majority of tumours remain within the bladder. It is uncertain whether patients with HRNMIBC are better treated with intravesical maintenance BCG (mBCG) immunotherapy or primary radical cystectomy (RC). A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed to compare these two different treatments but may be difficult to recruit to and has not been attempted to date. Before undertaking such an RCT, it is important to understand whether such a comparison is possible and how best to achieve it.Methods and analysisBRAVO is a multi-centre, parallel-group, mixed-methods, individually randomised, controlled, feasibility study for patients with HRNMIBC. Participants will be randomised to receive either mBCG immunotherapy or RC. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of performing the definitive phase III trial via estimation of eligibility and recruitment rates, assessing uptake of allocated treatment and compliance with mBCG, determining quality-of-life questionnaire completion rates and exploring reasons expressed by patients for declining recruitment into the study. We aim to recruit 60 participants from six centres in the UK. Surgical trials with disparate treatment options find recruitment challenging from both the patient and clinician perspective. By building on the experiences of other similar trials through implementing a comprehensive training package aimed at clinicians to address these challenges (qualitative substudy), we hope that we can demonstrate that a phase III trial is feasible.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval (16/YH/0268). Findings will be made available to patients, clinicians, the funders and the National Health Service through traditional publishing and social media.Trial registration numberISRCTN12509361; Pre results.

BackgroundThe combination of nivolumab, a programmed death-1 (PD-1) targeted monoclonal antibody, with the cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen-4 (CTLA-4) targeted antibody, ipilimumab, represents a new standard of care in the first-line setting for patients with intermediate- and poor-risk metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) based on recent phase III data. Combining ipilimumab with nivolumab increases rates of grade 3 and 4 toxicity compared with nivolumab alone, and the optimal scheduling of these agents when used together remains unknown. The aim of the PRISM study is to assess whether less frequent dosing of ipilimumab (12-weekly versus 3-weekly), in combination with nivolumab, is associated with a favourable toxicity profile without adversely impacting efficacy.MethodsThe PRISM trial is a UK-based, open label, multi-centre, phase II, randomised controlled trial. The trial population consists of patients with untreated locally advanced or metastatic clear cell RCC, and aims to recruit 189 participants. Participants will be randomised on a 2:1 basis in favour of a modified schedule of 4 doses of 12-weekly ipilimumab versus a standard schedule of 4 doses of 3-weekly ipilimumab, both in combination with standard nivolumab. The proportion of participants experiencing a grade 3 or 4 adverse reaction within 12 months forms the primary endpoint of the study, but with 12-month progression free survival a key secondary endpoint. The incidence of all adverse events, discontinuation rates, overall response rate, duration of response, overall survival rates and health related quality of life will also be analysed as secondary endpoints. In addition, the potential of circulating and tissue-based biomarkers as predictors of therapy response will be explored.DiscussionThe combination of nivolumab with ipilimumab is active in patients with mRCC. Modifying the frequency of ipilimumab dosing may mitigate toxicity rates and positively impact quality of life without compromising efficacy, a hypothesis being explored in other tumour types such as non-small cell lung cancer. The best way to give this combination to patients with mRCC must be similarly established.Trial registrationPRISM is registered with ISRCTN (reference ISRCTN95351638, 19/12/2017).Trial statusAt the time of submission, PRISM is open to recruitment and data collection is ongoing.

Background Research interest is growing in using EEG-based tools, such as Bispectral Index (BIS) technology, to assess levels of sedation for palliative care patients. To date, little research has investigated using BIS in palliative care practice, but previous exploratory work for our I-CANCARE programme asked clinicians, patients, and relatives whether using BIS in palliative care would be acceptable in principle. Aim To explore the direct experiences and perceptions of palliative care patients, their relatives, and clinicians regarding BIS monitoring in a UK hospice. Methods We trialled the use of BIS with hospice inpatients, and then conducted semi-structured interviews with them, their relatives, and hospice clinicians. Interview transcripts were analysed following the framework method. Results Ten patients, two relatives, and ten clinicians participated in individual interviews. Most (as in our previous hypothetical study) considered BIS monitoring non-intrusive. Some patients commented that after the sensor had been applied to their foreheads they were 'not aware' of it. Patients and clinicians commented that, although noticeable, the BIS device and sensor were small and easily handled, and felt that the monitoring did not affect patients' daily routines, nor care activities. After trialling BIS monitoring, participants said that they would have no objections to BIS being used as part of routine care, provided that it was beneficial for patients. Conclusions Our participants perceived BIS technology as acceptable and feasible for monitoring hospice inpatients' consciousness levels. This indicates that further exploration of how this technology might contribute to palliative care practice would be appropriate, and valuable.

No abstract