Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Clare Cruickshank is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Clare Cruickshank.


Lancet Oncology | 2016

Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

David P. Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Helen Mossop; Vincent Khoo; Alison J. Birtle; David Bloomfield; John Graham; P. Kirkbride; John P Logue; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M. O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Helen Patterson; Christopher Scrase; John Nicholas Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Jean Tremlett; M. Bidmead; Helen Mayles; O. Naismith; Chris South; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; Shama Hassan; Julia Pugh; C. Griffin; Emma Hall

Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.


Lancet Oncology | 2015

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

Anna Wilkins; Helen Mossop; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; David Bloomfield; Chris Parker; John P Logue; Christopher Scrase; Helen Patterson; Alison J. Birtle; John Nicholas Staffurth; Zafar Malik; Miguel Panades; Chinnamani Eswar; John Graham; Martin Russell; P. Kirkbride; Joe M. O'Sullivan; Annie Gao; Clare Cruickshank; C. Griffin; David P. Dearnaley; Emma Hall

Summary Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial. Methods The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b–T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4–64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months. Interpretation The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.


British Journal of Cancer | 2013

Phase II trial of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5FU chemotherapy in locally advanced and metastatic penis cancer (CRUK/09/001).

Steve Nicholson; Emma Hall; Stephen Harland; John D. Chester; Lisa Pickering; Jim Barber; Tony Elliott; Alastair H Thomson; Stephanie Burnett; Clare Cruickshank; Bernadette M Carrington; Rachel Waters; Amit Bahl

Background:Penis cancer is rare and clinical trial evidence on which to base treatment decisions is limited. Case reports suggest that the combination of docetaxel, cisplatin and 5-flurouracil (TPF) is highly active in this disease.Methods:Twenty-nine patients with locally advanced or metastatic squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited into a single-arm phase II trial from nine UK centres. Up to three cycles of chemotherapy were received (docetaxel 75 mg m−2 day 1, cisplatin 60 mg m−2 day 1, 5-flurouracil 750 mg m−2 per day days 1–5, repeated every 3 weeks). Primary outcome was objective response (assessed by RECIST). Fourteen or more responses in 26 evaluable patients were required to confirm a response rate of 60% or higher (Fleming-A’Hern design), warranting further evaluation. Secondary endpoints included toxicity and survival.Results:10/26 evaluable patients (38.5%, 95% CI: 20.2–59.4) achieved an objective response. Two patients with locally advanced disease achieved radiological complete remission. 65.5% of patients experienced at least one grade 3/4 adverse event.Conclusion:Docetaxel, cisplatin and 5FU did not reach the pre-determined threshold for further research and caused significant toxicity. Our results do not support the routine use of TPF. The observed complete responses support further investigation of combination chemotherapy in the neoadjuvant setting.


Technical Innovations & Patient Support in Radiation Oncology | 2017

Linking CHHiP prostate cancer RCT with GP records: A study proposal to investigate the effect of co-morbidities and medications on long-term symptoms and radiotherapy-related toxicity

Agnieszka Lemanska; Rachel Byford; Ana Correa; Clare Cruickshank; David P. Dearnaley; C. Griffin; Emma Hall; Simon de Lusignan; Sara Faithfull

Highlights • Data linkage allows combining patient records from different healthcare settings.• Linkage to GP data can support conduct of clinical trials and long-term follow-up.• The effect of co-morbidities and medications on cancer recovery is of interest.• Co-morbidities are potential risk factors for radiotherapy-related toxicity.• Statins or antihypertensives may potentially have protective effect.


European Urology | 2018

BOXIT—A Randomised Phase III Placebo-controlled Trial Evaluating the Addition of Celecoxib to Standard Treatment of Transitional Cell Carcinoma of the Bladder (CRUK/07/004)

John D. Kelly; Wei Shen Tan; Nuria Porta; Hugh Mostafid; Robert Huddart; Andrew Protheroe; Richard Bogle; Jane M Blazeby; Alison Palmer; Jo Cresswell; Mark Johnson; Richard J. Brough; Sanjeev Madaan; Stephen Andrews; Clare Cruickshank; Stephanie Burnett; Lauren Maynard; Emma Hall

BACKGROUND Non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) has a significant risk of recurrence despite adjuvant intravesical therapy. OBJECTIVE To determine whether celecoxib, a cyclo-oxygenase 2 inhibitor, reduces the risk of recurrence in NMIBC patients receiving standard treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS BOXIT (CRUK/07/004, ISRCTN84681538) is a double-blinded, phase III, randomised controlled trial. Patients aged ≥18 yr with intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC were accrued across 51 UK centres between 1 November 2007 and 23 July 2012. INTERVENTION Patients were randomised (1:1) to celecoxib 200mg twice daily or placebo for 2 yr. Patients with intermediate-risk NMIBC were recommended to receive six weekly mitomycin C instillations; high-risk NMIBC cases received six weekly bacillus Calmette-Guérin and maintenance therapy. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was time to disease recurrence. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS A total of 472 patients were randomised (236:236). With median follow-up of 44 mo (interquartile range: 36-57), 3-yr recurrence-free rate (95% confidence interval) was as follows: celecoxib 68% (61-74%) versus placebo 64% (57-70%; hazard ratio [HR] 0.82 [0.60-1.12], p=0.2). There was no difference in high-risk (HR 0.77 [0.52-1.15], p=0.2) or intermediate-risk (HR 0.90 [0.55-1.48], p=0.7) NMIBC. Subgroup analysis suggested that time to recurrence was longer in pT1 NMIBC patients treated with celecoxib compared with those receiving placebo (HR 0.53 [0.30-0.94], interaction test p=0.04). The 3-yr progression rates in high-risk patients were low: 10% (6.5-17%) and 9.7% (6.0-15%) in celecoxib and placebo arms, respectively. Incidence of serious cardiovascular events was higher in celecoxib (5.2%) than in placebo (1.7%) group (difference +3.4% [-0.3% to 7.2%], p=0.07). CONCLUSIONS BOXIT did not show that celecoxib reduces the risk of recurrence in intermediate- or high-risk NMIBC, although celecoxib was associated with delayed time to recurrence in pT1 NMIBC patients. The increased risk of cardiovascular events does not support the use of celecoxib. PATIENT SUMMARY Celecoxib was not shown to reduce the risk of recurrence in intermediate- or high-risk non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC), although celecoxib was associated with delayed time to recurrence in pT1 NMIBC patients. The increased risk of cardiovascular events does not support the use of celecoxib.


Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology | 2018

Methodology for tissue sample collection within a translational sub-study of the CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016), a large randomised phase III trial in localised prostate cancer

Anna Wilkins; Christine Stuttle; Shama Hassan; Claire Blanchard; Clare Cruickshank; C. Griffin; Jake Probert; Catherine M. Corbishley; Chris Parker; David P. Dearnaley; Emma Hall

Highlights • This article presents the methodology for tissue sample collection in the CHHiP trial.• 2047 patients provided tissue from 107 pathology departments between August 2012 and April 2014.• Central pathological review was important to minimise subjectivity in Gleason grade grouping and the impact of grade shift.• A key lesson learned was the need for prospective consent for tissue collection at trial recruitment.• Material Transfer Agreement (MTA) integration into the initial trial site agreement is important.


Trials | 2013

Using a Bayesian approach with reverse philosophy to design clinical trials in rare diseases

Lucinda Billingham; Emma Hall; Clare Cruickshank; Jim Barber; Steve Nicholson

A standard approach to trial design is to test a null hypothesis of no treatment effect in terms of a primary outcome measure against an alternative hypothesis of a minimal clinically relevant treatment effect as chosen by the investigators. Sample size is determined to maximise the chance that the trial detects this effect if it exists whilst minimising the chance of a false positive conclusion. We propose a reverse philosophy is used in rare diseases where the design starts with the number of patients that is feasible to collect within a sensible time frame and then, based on a Bayesian analysis, show that this amount of data could provide useful information on which to make clinical decisions in the future. This paper illustrates application of this approach to design the first ever potentially practice-changing trial in penile cancer, as part of the International Rare Cancers Initiative. The primary outcome measure is survival time with treatment effect measured as a hazard ratio. Given a predicted number of events, the design is evaluated by (i) demonstrating the information that the trial could provide for a range of possible observed results and prior distributions; and (ii) given a pre-specified decision criteria, using simulation to determine the probability that the trial will make the correct decision under different underlying true scenarios. Treatment decisions in rare diseases should be based on trial evidence but the traditional approach to design is problematic and using a Bayesian approach with reverse philosophy may provide a practical alternative.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2016

Comparison of hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy schedules for prostate cancer: Results from the phase III randomized CHHiP trial (CRUK/06/016).

David P. Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Helen Mossop; Alison J. Birtle; David Bloomfield; Clare Cruickshank; John Graham; Shama Hassan; Vincent Khoo; John P Logue; Helen Mayles; Julian Money-Kyrle; O. Naismith; Miguel Panades; Helen Patterson; Christopher Scrase; John Nicholas Staffurth; Jean Tremlett; C. Griffin; Emma Hall


International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018

The Efficacy and Safety of Conventional and Hypofractionated High-Dose Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer in an Elderly Population: A Subgroup Analysis of the CHHiP Trial

James M. Wilson; David P. Dearnaley; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; Alison J. Birtle; David Bloomfield; Ananya Choudhury; John Graham; C.L. Ferguson; Zafar Malik; Julian Money-Kyrle; Joe M. O'Sullivan; Miguel Panades; Chris Parker; Yvonne Rimmer; Christopher Scrase; John Nicholas Staffurth; Andrew Stockdale; Clare Cruickshank; C. Griffin; Emma Hall; CHHiP Trial Investigators


International Journal of Radiation Oncology Biology Physics | 2018

Impact of Prostate Cancer Hypofractionation on Patient Reported Outcomes: Baseline to 5 Years Change in the CHHIP Trial

John Nicholas Staffurth; J. Haviland; Anna Wilkins; Isabel Syndikus; Vincent Khoo; David Bloomfield; Chris Parker; John P Logue; Christopher Scrase; Alison J. Birtle; Zafar Malik; Miguel Panades; C. Eswar; John Graham; M. Russell; P. Kirkbride; Joe M. O'Sullivan; Clare Cruickshank; David P. Dearnaley; Emma Hall

Collaboration


Dive into the Clare Cruickshank's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Emma Hall

Institute of Cancer Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David P. Dearnaley

Institute of Cancer Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

C. Griffin

Institute of Cancer Research

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Chris Parker

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Isabel Syndikus

Clatterbridge Cancer Centre NHS Foundation Trust

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John Graham

Musgrove Park Hospital

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Vincent Khoo

The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge