Mara Ozolins

Surgical excision versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal-cell carcinoma (SINS): a multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND Basal-cell carcinoma is the most common form of skin cancer and its incidence is increasing worldwide. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of imiquimod cream versus surgical excision in patients with low-risk basal-cell carcinoma. METHODS We did a multicentre, parallel-group, pragmatic, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial at 12 centres in the UK, in which patients were recruited between June 19, 2003, and Feb 22, 2007, with 3 year follow-up from June 26, 2006, to May 26, 2010. Participants of any age were eligible if they had histologically confirmed primary nodular or superficial basal-cell carcinoma at low-risk sites. We excluded patients with morphoeic or recurrent basal-cell carcinoma and those with Gorlin syndrome. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated blocked randomisation, stratified by centre and tumour type, to receive either imiquimod 5% cream once daily for 6 weeks (superficial) or 12 weeks (nodular), or surgical excision with a 4 mm margin. The randomisation sequence was concealed from study investigators. Because of the nature of the interventions, masking of participants was not possible and masking of outcome assessors was only partly possible. The trial statistician was masked to allocation until all analyses had been done. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants with clinical success, defined as absence of initial treatment failure or signs of recurrence at 3 years from start of treatment. We used a prespecified non-inferiority margin of a relative risk (RR) of 0.87. Analysis was by a modified intention-to-treat population and per protocol. This study is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial (ISRCTN48755084), and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00066872. FINDINGS 501 participants were randomly assigned to the imiquimod group (n=254) or the surgical excision group (n=247). At year 3, 401 (80%) patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat group. At 3 years, 178 (84%) of 213 participants in the imiquimod group were treated successfully compared with 185 (98%) of 188 participants in the surgery group (RR 0.84, 98% CI 0.78-0.91; p<0.0001). No clear difference was noted between groups in patient-assessed cosmetic outcomes. The most common adverse events were itching (211 patients in the imiquimod group vs 129 in the surgery group) and weeping (160 vs 81). We recorded serious adverse events in 99 (40%) of 249 participants in the imiquimod group and 97 (42%) of 229 in the surgery group had serious adverse events, but none were regarded as related to treatment. 12 (5%) participants in the imiquimod group withdrew because of adverse events compared with four (2%) in the surgery group. INTERPRETATION Imiquimod was inferior to surgery according to our predefined non-inferiority criterion. Although excisional surgery remains the best treatment for low-risk basal-cell carcinoma, imiquimod cream might still be a useful treatment option for small low-risk superficial or nodular basal-cell carcinoma dependent on factors such as patient preference, size and site of the lesion, and whether the patient has more than one lesion. FUNDING Cancer Research UK.

What determines patient preferences for treating low risk basal cell carcinoma when comparing surgery vs imiquimod?: a discrete choice experiment survey from the SINS trial

BackgroundThe SINS trial (Controlled Clinical Trials ISRCTN48755084; Eudract No. 2004-004506-24) is a randomised controlled trial evaluating long term success of excisional surgery vs. imiquimod 5% cream for low risk nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma (BCC). The trial included a discrete choice experiment questionnaire to explore patient preferences of a cream versus surgery for the treatment of their skin cancer.MethodsThe self-completed questionnaire was administered at baseline to 183 participants, measuring patients’ strength of preferences when choosing either alternative ‘surgery’ or ‘imiquimod cream’ instead of a fixed ‘current situation’ option (of surgical excision as standard practice in UK). The treatments were described according to: cost, chance of complete clearance, side effects and appearance. Participants had to choose between various scenarios. Analysis was performed using a mixed logit model, which took into account the impact of previous BCC treatment and sample preference variability.ResultsThe analysis showed that respondents preferred ‘imiquimod cream’ to their ‘current situation’ or ‘surgery’, regardless of previous experience of BCC symptoms and treatment. Respondents were more likely to be worried about their cosmetic outcomes and side effects they might experience over and above their chance of clearance and cost. Those with no experience of surgery (compared with experience) valued more the choice of ‘imiquimod cream’ (£1013 vs £781). All treatment characteristics were significant determinants of treatment choice, and there was significant variability in the population preferences for all of them.ConclusionsPatients with BCC valued more ‘imiquimod cream’ than alternative ‘surgery’ options, and all treatment characteristics were important for their choice of care. Understanding how people with a BCC value alternative interventions may better inform the development of health care interventions.

The SINS trial: a randomised controlled trial of excisional surgery versus imiquimod 5% cream for nodular and superficial basal cell carcinoma.

BackgroundBasal cell carcinoma is the commonest human cancer. Despite increasing incidence it remains poorly researched. While not life threatening it can cause significant cosmetic disfigurement. Imiquimod, a cream which enhances the bodys immune response, may help deal with the number of cases that occur in low-risk sites, especially when good cosmetic results and home use without surgery are needed.This study aims 1. To compare excisional surgery with imiquimod cream for nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma in low risk sites, with respect to 3 year clinical clearance, cost-effectiveness and cosmetic results. 2. To ascertain if certain phenotypic features and gene polymorphisms predict tumour responsiveness to treatment.Methods/DesignFive hundred participants with low risk nodular or superficial basal cell carcinoma will be recruited from hospitals to this multi-centre, randomised, parallel group, controlled phase III trial. Treatment in the imiquimod group is for 6 weeks for superficial basal cell carcinoma and 12 weeks for nodular basal cell carcinoma. Both treatment groups are followed up in clinic for 3 years. Primary outcome variable: the proportion of participants with clinical evidence of success (no recurrence) at 3 years. The primary outcome will be compared between the two treatment groups. Secondary outcomes include: i) clinical success at 1, 2 and 5 years, ii) time to first recurrence, iii) cosmetic appearance of lesion site after treatment, iv) level of pain, and v) cost-effectiveness. Safety and tolerability data will also be reported.DiscussionThis study protocol describes a pragmatic randomised controlled trial which it is hoped will address the above uncertainties. Three-year results will be available towards the end of 2010.Trial registrationMeta-register: NCT00066872, Eudract No. 2004-004506-24, ISRCTN48755084.

A programme of studies including assessment of diagnostic accuracy of school hearing screening tests and a cost-effectiveness model of school entry hearing screening programmes

BACKGROUND Identification of permanent hearing impairment at the earliest possible age is crucial to maximise the development of speech and language. Universal newborn hearing screening identifies the majority of the 1 in 1000 children born with a hearing impairment, but later onset can occur at any time and there is no optimum time for further screening. A universal but non-standardised school entry screening (SES) programme is in place in many parts of the UK but its value is questioned. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of hearing screening tests and the cost-effectiveness of the SES programme in the UK. DESIGN Systematic review, case-control diagnostic accuracy study, comparison of routinely collected data for services with and without a SES programme, parental questionnaires, observation of practical implementation and cost-effectiveness modelling. SETTING Second- and third-tier audiology services; community. PARTICIPANTS Children aged 4-6 years and their parents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Diagnostic accuracy of two hearing screening devices, referral rate and source, yield, age at referral and cost per quality-adjusted life-year. RESULTS The review of diagnostic accuracy studies concluded that research to date demonstrates marked variability in the design, methodological quality and results. The pure-tone screen (PTS) (Amplivox, Eynsham, UK) and HearCheck (HC) screener (Siemens, Frimley, UK) devices had high sensitivity (PTS ≥ 89%, HC ≥ 83%) and specificity (PTS ≥ 78%, HC ≥ 83%) for identifying hearing impairment. The rate of referral for hearing problems was 36% lower with SES (Nottingham) relative to no SES (Cambridge) [rate ratio 0.64, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.69; p < 0.001]. The yield of confirmed cases did not differ between areas with and without SES (rate ratio 0.82, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.06; p = 0.12). The mean age of referral did not differ between areas with and without SES for all referrals but children with confirmed hearing impairment were older at referral in the site with SES (mean age difference 0.47 years, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.70 years; p < 0.001). Parental responses revealed that the consequences to the family of the referral process are minor. A SES programme is unlikely to be cost-effective and, using base-case assumptions, is dominated by a no screening strategy. A SES programme could be cost-effective if there are fewer referrals associated with SES programmes or if referrals occur more quickly with SES programmes. CONCLUSIONS A SES programme using the PTS or HC screener is unlikely to be effective in increasing the identified number of cases with hearing impairment and lowering the average age at identification and is therefore unlikely to represent good value for money. This finding is, however, critically dependent on the results of the observational study comparing Nottingham and Cambridge, which has limitations. The following are suggested: systematic reviews of the accuracy of devices used to measure hearing at school entry; characterisation and measurement of the cost-effectiveness of different approaches to the ad-hoc referral system; examination of programme specificity as opposed to test specificity; further observational comparative studies of different programmes; and opportunistic trials of withdrawal of SES programmes. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN61668996. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A directly comparative two-gate case–control diagnostic accuracy study of the pure tone screen and HearCheck screener tests for identifying hearing impairment in school children

Objectives This study directly compared the accuracy of two audiometry-based tests for screening school children for hearing impairment: the currently used test, pure tone screen and a device newly applied to children, HearCheck Screener. Design Two-gate case–control diagnostic test accuracy study. Setting and participants Hearing impaired children (‘intended cases’) aged 4–6 years were recruited between February 2013 and August 2014 from collaborating audiology services. Children with no previously identified impairment (‘intended controls’) were recruited from Foundation and Year 1 of schools between February 2013 and June 2014 in central England. The reference standard was pure tone audiometry. Tests were administered at Nottingham Hearing Biomedical Research Unit or, for some intended cases only, in the participant’s home. Main outcome measures Sensitivity and specificity of the pure tone screen and HearCheck tests based on pure tone audiometry result as reference standard. Results 315 children (630 ears) were recruited; 75 from audiology services and 240 from schools. Full test and reference standard data were obtained for 600 ears; 155 ears were classified as truly impaired and 445 as truly hearing based on the pure tone audiometry assessment. Sensitivity was estimated to be 94.2% (95% CI 89.0% to 97.0%) for pure tone screen and 89.0% (95% CI 82.9% to 93.1%) for HearCheck (difference=5.2% favouring pure tone screen; 95% CI 0.2% to 10.1%; p=0.02). Estimates for specificity were 82.2% (95% CI 77.7% to 86.0%) for pure tone screen and 86.5% (95% CI 82.5% to 89.8%) for HearCheck (difference=4.3% favouring HearCheck; 95% CI0.4% to 8.2%; p=0.02). Conclusion Pure tone screen was better than HearCheck with respect to sensitivity but inferior with respect to specificity. As avoiding missed cases is arguably of greater importance for school entry screening, pure tone screen is probably preferable in this context. Study registration number Current controlled trials: ISRCTN61668996.