Search

Objective: To study the efficiency of research implementation in a large radiotherapy institute, in either an internal review board-approved clinical trial or clinical routine. Methods: Scientific publications of the institute were listed. We asked clinicians from tumour expert groups whether the study had been implemented yet in a clinical trial or in clinical practice and which facilitators or barriers were relevant. An independent investigator verified all results. We calculated the implementation rates and the frequency of mentioned facilitators and barriers. Results: Resident researchers had published 234 studies over the past 4 years. Overall, 70/234 (30%) technical or preclinical studies were tested or implemented in a clinical environment in either trials or routine. In total, 45/234 (19%) studies were routinely implemented; in the 61 clinical studies, this percentage was higher: 38% (23/61). The main facilitator was the level of evidence and the main barriers were workload and high complexity. Conclusion: We were able to calculate the implementation ratio of published research into clinical practice and set benchmark figures for other radiotherapy clinics. Level of evidence was an important facilitator, while workload and high complexity of the new procedures were important barriers for implementation. Recent articles suggest that academic entrepreneurship will facilitate this process further. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.Trials are vital in informing routine clinical care; however, current designs have major deficiencies. An overview of the various challenges that face modern clinical research and the methods that can be exploited to solve these challenges, in the context of personalised cancer treatment in the 21st century is provided. Aim.The purpose of this manuscript, without intending to be comprehensive, is to spark thought whilst presenting and discussing two important and complementary alternatives to traditional evidence-based medicine, specifically rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design. Rapid learning health care is an approach that proposes to extract and apply knowledge from routine clinical care data rather than exclusively depending on clinical trial evidence, (please watch the animation:http://youtu.be/ZDJFOxpwqEA). The cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design is a pragmatic method which has been proposed to help overcome the weaknesses of conventional randomised trials, taking advantage of the standardised follow-up approaches more and more used in routine patient care. This approach is particularly useful when the new intervention is a priori attractive for the patient (i.e. proton therapy, patient decision aids or expensive medications), when the outcomes are easily collected, and when there is no need of a placebo arm. Discussion.Truly personalised cancer treatment is the goal in modern radiotherapy. However, personalised cancer treatment is also an immense challenge. The vast variety of both cancer patients and treatment options makes it extremely difficult to determine which decisions are optimal for the individual patient. Nevertheless, rapid learning health care and cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design are two approaches (among others) that can help meet this challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]