The Effect of the UK Coordinating Centre for Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT1) on Population-based Treatment and Survival for Squamous Cell Cancer of the Anus

Downing, Amy; Morris, Eva; Aravani, Ariadni; Finan, P. J.; Lawton, Sarah; Thomas, James; Sebag‐Montefiore, David

doi:10.1016/j.clon.2015.06.019

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst radical abdomino-perineal excision (APE) has been replaced by CRT as primary treatment for most anal cancers, 56 there are a number of uncommon scenarios where there are relative indications for APE as the primary treatment.…”

Section: The Role Of the Surgeon For Locoregional Anal Canal Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up☆

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

show abstract

Section: The Role Of the Surgeon For Locoregional Anal Canal Cancermentioning

confidence: 99%

Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up☆

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This approach was taken because of the anticipated challenge of conducting a primary review of empirical examples of cancer research impact evaluation, and to allow a critique of empirical studies in the context of lessons learnt from the wider literature. A primary review would have been difficult because examples of cancer research impact evaluation, for example, the assessment of research impact on clinical guidelines [ 13 ], or clinical practice [ 14 – 16 ], are often not categorised in publication databases under the umbrella term of research impact. Reasons for this are the lack of medical subject heading (MeSH) search term relating to research impact assessment and the differing definitions for research impact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment

Hanna

Boyd

Jones

2021

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Performing cancer research relies on substantial financial investment, and contributions in time and effort from patients. It is therefore important that this research has real life impacts which are properly evaluated. The optimal approach to cancer research impact evaluation is not clear. The aim of this study was to undertake a systematic review of review articles that describe approaches to impact assessment, and to identify examples of cancer research impact evaluation within these reviews. Methods In total, 11 publication databases and the grey literature were searched to identify review articles addressing the topic of approaches to research impact assessment. Information was extracted on methods for data collection and analysis, impact categories and frameworks used for the purposes of evaluation. Empirical examples of impact assessments of cancer research were identified from these literature reviews. Approaches used in these examples were appraised, with a reflection on which methods would be suited to cancer research impact evaluation going forward. Results In total, 40 literature reviews were identified. Important methods to collect and analyse data for impact assessments were surveys, interviews and documentary analysis. Key categories of impact spanning the reviews were summarised, and a list of frameworks commonly used for impact assessment was generated. The Payback Framework was most often described. Fourteen examples of impact evaluation for cancer research were identified. They ranged from those assessing the impact of a national, charity-funded portfolio of cancer research to the clinical practice impact of a single trial. A set of recommendations for approaching cancer research impact assessment was generated. Conclusions Impact evaluation can demonstrate if and why conducting cancer research is worthwhile. Using a mixed methods, multi-category assessment organised within a framework, will provide a robust evaluation, but the ability to perform this type of assessment may be constrained by time and resources. Whichever approach is used, easily measured, but inappropriate metrics should be avoided. Going forward, dissemination of the results of cancer research impact assessments will allow the cancer research community to learn how to conduct these evaluations.

show abstract

“… 9 Approximately three-quarters of patients with SCCA receive CRT as initial treatment. 10 Through systematic review, 11 we recently reported on 45 studies of patients with SCCA who received either radiotherapy alone (RT) or CRT and noted that 5-year overall survival increased from a mean estimate of 64% in 1980 to 75% in 2010 ( p = 0.046). It is conceivable that this temporal improvement might be driven by improvements in loco-regional control, but might also be due to unmeasured factors, such as general improvement in healthcare, centralisation, improved imaging and radiotherapy delivery, and more effective management of toxicity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Temporal improvements in loco-regional failure and survival in patients with anal cancer treated with chemo-radiotherapy: treatment cohort study (1990–2014)

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We evaluated oncological changes in patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the anus (SCCA) treated by chemoradiotherapy (CRT) from a large UK institute, to derive estimates of contemporary outcomes. Methods We performed a treatment-cohort analysis in 560 patients with non-metastatic SCCA treated with CRT over 25 years. The primary outcomes were 3-year loco-regional failure (LRF), 5-year overall survival (OS), and 5-year cancer-specific survival (CSS). We developed prediction models; and overlaid estimates on published results from historic trials. Results Age distributions, proportions by gender and cT stage remained stable over time. The median follow-up was 61 (IQR: 36–79) months. Comparing the first period (1990–1994) with the last period (2010–2014), 3-year LRF declined from 33 to 16% (Ptrends < 0.001); 5-year OS increased from 60% to 76% (Ptrends = 0.001); and 5-year CCS increased from 62% in to 80% (Ptrends = 0.001). For 2020, the models predicted a 3-year LRF of 14.7% (95% CIs: 0–31.3); 5-year OS of 74.7% (95% CIs: 54.6–94.9); and 5-year CSS of 85.7% (95% CIs: 75.3–96.0). Reported oncological outcomes from historic trials generally underestimated contemporary outcomes. Conclusions Current and predicted rates for 3-year LRF and 5-year survivals are considerably improved compared with those in historic trials.

show abstract

The Effect of the UK Coordinating Centre for Cancer Research Anal Cancer Trial (ACT1) on Population-based Treatment and Survival for Squamous Cell Cancer of the Anus

Abstract: Introduction: Between 1987 and 1994 three randomised phase III trials demonstrated that

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up☆

Anal cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up☆

Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment

Temporal improvements in loco-regional failure and survival in patients with anal cancer treated with chemo-radiotherapy: treatment cohort study (1990–2014)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About