Search

Summary: Background: It is uncertain which biological features underpin the response of rectal cancer (RC) to radiotherapy. No biomarker is currently in clinical use to select patients for treatment modifications. Methods: We identified two cohorts of patients (total N = 249) with RC treated with neoadjuvant radiotherapy (45Gy/25) plus fluoropyrimidine. This discovery set included 57 cases with pathological complete response (pCR) to chemoradiotherapy (23%). Pre-treatment cancer biopsies were assessed using transcriptome-wide mRNA expression and targeted DNA sequencing for copy number and driver mutations. Biological candidate and machine learning (ML) approaches were used to identify predictors of pCR to radiotherapy independent of tumour stage. Findings were assessed in 107 cases from an independent validation set (GSE87211). Findings: Three gene expression sets showed significant independent associations with pCR: Fibroblast-TGFβ Response Signature (F-TBRS) with radioresistance; and cytotoxic lymphocyte (CL) expression signature and consensus molecular subtype CMS1 with radiosensitivity. These associations were replicated in the validation cohort. In parallel, a gradient boosting machine model comprising the expression of 33 genes generated in the discovery cohort showed high performance in GSE87211 with 90% sensitivity, 86% specificity. Biological and ML signatures indicated similar mechanisms underlying radiation response, and showed better AUC and p-values than published transcriptomic signatures of radiation response in RC. Interpretation: RCs responding completely to chemoradiotherapy (CRT) have biological characteristics of immune response and absence of immune inhibitory TGFβ signalling. These tumours may be identified with a potential biomarker based on a 33 gene expression signature. This could help select patients likely to respond to treatment with a primary radiotherapy approach as for anal cancer. Conversely, those with predicted radioresistance may be candidates for clinical trials evaluating addition of immune-oncology agents and stromal TGFβ signalling inhibition. Funding: The Stratification in Colorectal Cancer Consortium (S:CORT) was funded by the Medical Research Council and Cancer Research UK (MR/M016587/1).

Background Neutropenic sepsis is a common complication of systemic anticancer treatment. There is variation in practice in timing of switch to oral antibiotics after commencement of empirical intravenous antibiotic therapy. Objectives To establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early switch to oral antibiotics in patients with neutropenic sepsis at low risk of infective complications. Design A randomised, multicentre, open-label, allocation concealed, non-inferiority trial to establish the clinical and cost effectiveness of early oral switch in comparison to standard care. Setting Nineteen UK oncology centres. Participants Patients aged 16 years and over receiving systemic anticancer therapy with fever (≥ 38°C), or symptoms and signs of sepsis, and neutropenia (≤ 1.0 × 109/l) within 24 hours of randomisation, with a Multinational Association for Supportive Care in Cancer score of ≥ 21 and receiving intravenous piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for

Summary: Background: The utility of early metabolic response assessment to guide selection of the systemic component of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer is uncertain. Methods: In this multi-centre, randomised, open-label, phase II substudy of the radiotherapy dose-escalation SCOPE2 trial we evaluated the role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) at day 14 of cycle 1 of three-weekly induction cis/cap (cisplatin (60 mg/m2)/capecitabine (625 mg/m2 days 1–21)) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC). Non-responders, who had a less than 35% reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from pre-treatment baseline, were randomly assigned to continue cis/cap or switch to car/pac (carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) for a further induction cycle, then concurrently with radiotherapy over 25 fractions. Responders continued cis/cap for the duration of treatment. All patients (including responders) were randomised to standard (50Gy) or high (60Gy) dose radiation as part of the main study. Primary endpoint for the substudy was treatment failure-free survival (TFFS) at week 24. The trial was registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 97125464 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02741856. Findings: This substudy was closed on 1st August 2021 by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on the grounds of futility and possible harm. To this point from 22nd November 2016, 103 patients from 16 UK centres had participated in the PET-CT substudy; 63 (61.2%; 52/83 OSCC, 11/20 OAC) of whom were non-responders. Of these, 31 were randomised to car/pac and 32 to remain on cis/cap. All patients were followed up until at least 24 weeks, at which point in OSCC both TFFS (25/27 (92.6%) vs 17/25 (68%); p = 0.028) and overall survival (42.5 vs. 20.4 months, adjusted HR 0.36; p = 0.018) favoured cis/cap over car/pac. There was a trend towards worse survival in OSCC + OAC cis/cap responders (33.6 months; 95%CI 23.1-nr) vs. non-responders (42.5 (95%CI 27.0-nr) months; HR = 1.43; 95%CI 0.67–3.08; p = 0.35). Interpretation: In OSCC, early metabolic response assessment is not prognostic for TFFS or overall survival and should not be used to personalise systemic therapy in patients receiving dCRT. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Classification and risk-stratification for Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) at diagnosis are primarily based on cytogenetics and only a few gene mutations. Here, the authors study the genomic landscape of 3653 AML patients and characterize 16 non-overlapping molecular subgroups of clinical relevance for disease classification and risk prognostication.

Background: Complex trials with innovative designs are becoming increasingly common and offer the potential to improve patient outcomes in a shorter time frame. There is evidence that patients with colorectal cancer fall into different subgroups with varying responsiveness to therapy, and that this variation is linked to genetic biomarkers. To the best of our knowledge, FOCUS4 was the first molecularly stratified trial in metastatic colorectal cancer and remains one of the first umbrella trial designs to be launched globally. Objectives: To identify novel therapies that improve disease control within the molecular subgroup of metastatic colorectal cancer in which the novel therapies were expected to be most effective. Design: This was a Phase II/III molecularly stratified umbrella trial that used adaptive statistical methodology to decide which subtrial should close early; new subtrials were added as protocol amendments. Setting: The maintenance setting following 16 weeks of first-line combination chemotherapy. Participants: Patients with newly diagnosed metastatic colorectal cancer were registered, and central laboratory testing was used to stratify their tumour into molecular subtypes. Following 16 weeks of first-line therapy, patients with stable or responding disease were eligible for randomisation into either a molecularly stratified subtrial or the non-stratified FOCUS4-N trial. Interventions: Of the 20 drug combinations that were explored for inclusion in the platform trial, three molecularly targeted subtrials were activated: FOCUS4-B (PIK3CA mutation or PTEN overexpression) – aspirin versus placebo; FOCUS4-C (TP53 and RAS mutation) – adavosertib (AstraZeneca Ltd, Cambridge, UK) versus active monitoring; and FOCUS4-D (BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild type) – AZD8931 versus placebo. A non-stratified subtrial was also carried out: FOCUS4-N – capecitabine versus active monitoring. Main outcome measures: The main outcome measure was progression-free survival from the time of randomisation to progression, comparing the intervention with active monitoring/placebo. Toxicity and overall survival data were collected in all randomised patients, and quality of life (using EuroQol-5 Dimensions) data were collected in FOCUS4-N only. Results: Between January 2014 and October 2020, 1434 patients were registered from 88 hospitals in the UK. Successful biomarker testing was completed in 1291 out of 1382 samples (93%), and 908 out of 1315 patients (69%) completing 16 weeks of first-line therapy were eligible for randomisation, with 361 randomly allocated to a subtrial. FOCUS4-B evaluated aspirin versus placebo in the PIK3CA-mutant/PTEN-loss subgroup, but recruited only six patients, so was closed for futility. FOCUS4-C evaluated adavosertib versus active monitoring in 67 patients in the RAS + TP53 double-mutant subgroup and met its primary end point, showing an improvement in progression-free survival (median 3.61 vs. 1.87 months; hazard ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.68; p = 0022). FOCUS4-D evaluated AZD8931 in 32 patients in the BRAF-PIK3CA-RAS wild-type subgroup and showed no benefit, so was discontinued after the first interim analysis. FOCUS4-N evaluated capecitabine monotherapy versus active monitoring in 254 patients and met its primary end point, showing improvement in progression-free survival (hazard ratio 0.40, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.75; p

Introduction Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified.Methods and analysis Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021236979.

The treatment of locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) has seen major advances over the past 3 decades, with multimodality treatment now standard of care. Combining surgical resection with radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy can reduce local recurrence from around 20% to approximately 5%. Despite improvements in local control, distant recurrence and subsequent survival rates have not changed. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved patient outcomes in several solid tumor types in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced disease setting; however, in colorectal cancer, most clinical trials have been performed in the metastatic setting and the benefits confined to microsatellite instability–high tumors. In this article, we review the current preclinical and clinical evidence for using immune checkpoint inhibition in the treatment of LARC and discuss the rationale for specifically exploring the use of this therapy in the neoadjuvant setting. We summarize and discuss relevant clinical trials that are currently in setup and recruiting to test this treatment strategy and reflect on unanswered questions that still need to be addressed within future research efforts.

We are presenting an online workflow puzzle, which runs in a browser. The player can put together puzzle pieces to pre-defined production chains. Extensive online help supports the player in laying out the puzzle pieces correctly. The puzzle is based on the process-resource model, which is also the basis of the Job Definition Format. This paper explains the game as well as implementation strategy.

Abstract Background Chemoradiotherapy remains the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. Efforts to intensify treatment and increase response rates have yet to yield practice changing results due to increased toxicity and/or absence of increased radiosensitization. Enadenotucirev (EnAd) is a tumour selective, oncolytic adenovirus which can be given intravenously. Pre-clinical evidence of synergy with radiation warrants further clinical testing and assessment of safety with radiation. Methods Eligibility include histology confirmed locally advanced rectal cancer that require chemoradiation. The trial will use a Time-to-Event Continual Reassessment Model-based (TiTE-CRM) approach using toxicity and efficacy as co-primary endpoints to recommend the optimal dose and treatment schedule 30 patients will be recruited. Secondary endpoints include pathological complete response the neoadjuvant rectal score. A translational program will be based on a mandatory biopsy during the second week of treatment for ‘proof-of-concept’ and exploration of mechanism. The trial opened to recruitment in July 2019, at an expected rate of 1 per month for up to 4 years. Discussion Chemoradiation with Enadenotucirev as a radiosensitiser in locally Advanced Rectal cancer (CEDAR) is a prospective multicentre study testing a new paradigm in radiosensitization in rectal cancer. The unique ability of EnAd to selectively infect tumour cells following intravenous delivery is an exciting opportunity with a clear translational goal. The novel statistical design will make efficient use of both toxicity and efficacy data to inform subsequent studies. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03916510 . Registered 16th April 2019.

Abstract Background Neutropenic sepsis remains a common treatment complication for patients receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence have not recommended switching from empirical intravenous antibiotics to oral antibiotics within 48 h for patients assessed as low risk for septic complications because of uncertainty about whether this would achieve comparable outcomes to using intravenous antibiotics for longer. The UK National Institute for Health Research funded the EASI-SWITCH trial to tackle this uncertainty. Methods The trial is a pragmatic, randomised, non-inferiority trial that aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of early switching from intravenous to oral antibiotics in cancer patients with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Patients ≥ 16 years, receiving systemic anti-cancer treatment (acute leukaemics/stem cell transplants excluded), with a temperature of > 38 °C, neutrophil count ≤ 1.0 × 109/L, MASCC (Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer) score ≥ 21 and receiving IV piperacillin/tazobactam or meropenem for less than 24 h are eligible to participate. Patients are randomised 1:1 either (i) to switch to oral ciprofloxacin and co-amoxiclav within 12–24 h of commencing intravenous antibiotics, completing at least 5 days total antibiotics (intervention), or (ii) to continue intravenous antibiotics for at least 48 h, with ongoing antibiotics being continued at the physician’s discretion (control). Patients are discharged home when their physician deems it appropriate. The primary outcome measure is a composite of treatment failures as assessed at day 14. The criteria for treatment failure include fever persistence or recurrence 72 h after starting intravenous antibiotics, escalation from protocolised antibiotics, hospital readmission related to infection/antibiotics, critical care support or death. Based on a 15% treatment failure rate in the control group and a 15% non-inferiority margin, the recruitment target is 230 patients. Discussion If the trial demonstrates non-inferiority of early switching to oral antibiotics, with potential benefits for patient quality of life and resource savings, this finding will have significant implications for the routine clinical management of those with low-risk neutropenic sepsis. Trial registration ISRCTN: 84288963. Registered on the 1 July 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN84288963 . EudraCT: 2015-002830-35.

Introduction Older people living in residential and nursing care homes often have complex needs and are at high risk of poor health outcomes and mortality, especially if they contract COVID-19. Care homes use infection prevention and control measures such as social distancing and isolating residents to protect them from COVID-19. The care home sector has stated that implementing social distancing and isolation when caring for residents is a significant challenge. This paper presents the protocol of a mixed-methods study to explore and understand the real-life experiences of implementing social distancing and isolation of residents in care homes for older people from the perspective of residents, families/friends and staff working in and with care homes. The study aims to develop a toolkit of resources for health and care delivery now and for future outbreaks of infectious diseases.Methods and analysis The study will be conducted in three phases. Phase 1 is a rapid review of evidence to collate knowledge on the mechanisms and measures used by care homes and long-term facilities to socially distance and isolate older people or control the spread of other infectious and contagious diseases. The review results will contribute to participant interviews in phase 2 and toolkit development in phase 3. Phase 2 will involve case studies with six care homes in England, involving the conduct of individual interviews with residents, families and friends, and staff, collection of care home policies and protocols related to social distancing and isolation for residents, and routinely collected care home data. A focus group with a purposive sample of external key informants will also be conducted. Phase 3, synthesising findings from phases 1 and 2, will inform the codesign of a toolkit of resources for residents, families/friends and care homes.Ethics and dissemination The study has been approved by Coventry and Warwick Research Ethics Committee (20/WM/0318). To maximise impact, we will work closely with the Study Committees and the Patient and Public Involvement group to ensure the findings reach key stakeholders, including residents, families/friends, care homes, commissioners and organisations representing care home providers. We will disseminate the study outputs in peer-reviewed and professional journals, at professional conferences and via other knowledge transfer activities with the care home sector, and resident and carer organisations. The toolkit comprising evidence-informed guidance and resources and a mosaic film will be hosted on a project webpage.Registration details This project is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research Programme (Project reference NIHR132541). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021226734.

Background: Benchmarking international cancer survival differences is necessary to evaluate and improve healthcare systems. Our aim was to assess the potential regional differences in outcomes among patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) participating in international randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Design: Countries were grouped into 11 regions according to the World Health Organization and the EUROCARE model. Meta-analyses based on individual patient data were used to synthesize data across studies and regions and to conduct comparisons for outcomes in a two-stage random-effects model after adjusting for age, sex, performance status, and time period. We used mCRC patients enrolled in the first-line RCTs from the ARCAD database, which provided enrolling country information. There were 21,509 patients in 27 RCTs included across the 11 regions. Results: Main outcomes were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Compared with other regions, patients from the United Kingdom (UK) and Ireland were proportionaly over-represented, older, with higher performance status, more frequently male, and more commonly not treated with biological therapies. Cohorts from central Europe and the United States (USA) had significantly longer OS compared with those from UK and Ireland ( p = 0.0034 and p

Abstract Background Pre-operative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) for MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal cancer is primarily intended to reduce local recurrence rates by downstaging tumours, enabling an improved likelihood of curative resection. However, in a subset of patients complete tumour regression occurs implying that no viable tumour is present within the surgical specimen. This raises the possibility that surgery may have been avoided. It is also recognised that response to CRT is a key determinant of prognosis. Recent radiological advances enable this response to be assessed pre-operatively using the MRI tumour regression grade (mrTRG). Potentially, this allows modification of the baseline MRI-derived treatment strategy. Hence, in a ‘good’ mrTRG responder, with little or no evidence of tumour, surgery may be deferred. Conversely, a ‘poor response’ identifies an adverse prognostic group which may benefit from additional pre-operative therapy. Methods/design TRIGGER is a multicentre, open, interventional, randomised control feasibility study with an embedded phase III design. Patients with MRI-defined, locally advanced rectal adenocarcinoma deemed to require CRT will be eligible for recruitment. During CRT, patients will be randomised (1:2) between conventional management, according to baseline MRI, versus mrTRG-directed management. The primary endpoint of the feasibility phase is to assess the rate of patient recruitment and randomisation. Secondary endpoints include the rate of unit recruitment, acute drug toxicity, reproducibility of mrTRG reporting, surgical morbidity, pathological circumferential resection margin involvement, pathology regression grade, residual tumour cell density and surgical/specimen quality rates. The phase III trial will focus on long-term safety, regrowth rates, oncological survival analysis, quality of life and health economics analysis. Discussion The TRIGGER trial aims to determine whether patients with locally advanced rectal cancer can be recruited and subsequently randomised into a control trial that offers MRI-directed patient management according to radiological response to CRT (mrTRG). The feasibility study will inform a phase III trial design investigating stratified treatment of good and poor responders according to 3-year disease-free survival, colostomy-free survival as well as an increase in cases managed without a major resection. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02704520 . Registered on 5 February 2016.

BACKGROUND:Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. METHODS:Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. RESULTS:Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53-0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). CONCLUSION:Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers?

This article interrogates the bureaucratization of war, incarnate in the covert lethal drone. Bureaucracies are criticized typically for their complexity, inefficiency, and inflexibility. This article is concerned with their moral indifference. It explores killing, which is so highly administered, so morally remote, and of such scale, that we acknowledge a covert lethal program. This is a bureaucratized program of assassination in contravention of critical human rights. In this article, this program is seen to compromise the advance of global justice. Moreover, the bureaucratization of lethal force is seen to dissolve democratic ideals from within. The bureaucracy isolates the citizens from lethal force applied in their name. People are killed, in the name of the State, but without conspicuous justification, or judicial review, and without informed public debate. This article gives an account of the risk associated with the bureaucratization of the State's lethal power. Exemplified by the covert drone, this is power with formidable reach. It is power as well, which requires great moral sensitivity. Considering the drone program, this article identifies challenges, which will become more prominent and pressing, as technology advances.

Australian legislation and military doctrine stipulate that soldiers ‘subjugate their will’ to government, and fight in any war the government declares. Neither legislation nor doctrine enables the conscience of soldiers. Together, provisions of legislation and doctrine seem to take soldiers for granted. And, rather than strengthening the military instrument, the convention of legislation and doctrine seems to weaken the democratic foundations upon which the military may be shaped as a force for justice. Denied liberty of their conscience, soldiers are denied the foundational right of democratic citizenship and construed as utensils of the State. This article critiques the idea of moral agency in Australian legislation and military doctrine and is concerned with the obligation of the State to safeguard the moral integrity of individual soldiers, so soldiers might serve with a fully formed moral assurance to advance justice in the world. Beyond its explicit focus on the convention of Australian thought, this article raises questions of far-reaching relevance. The provisos of Australian legislation and doctrine are an analogue of western thinking. Thus, this discussion challenges many assumptions concerning military duty and effectiveness. Discussion will additionally provoke some reassessment of the expectations democratic societies hold of their soldiers.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors are not meeting the recommended physical activity levels associated with improving their chances of survival and quality of life. Rehabilitation could address this problem. Objectives: The aims of the Cardiac Rehabilitation In Bowel cancer study were to assess whether or not cardiac rehabilitation is a feasible and acceptable model to aid the recovery of people with CRC and to test the feasibility and acceptability of the protocol design. Design: Intervention testing and feasibility work (phase 1) and a pilot randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative study (phase 2), supplemented with an economic evaluation. Randomisation was to cardiac rehabilitation or usual care. Outcomes were differences in objective measures of physical activity and sedentary behaviour, self-reported measures of quality of life, anxiety, depression and fatigue. Qualitative work involved patients and clinicians from both cancer and cardiac specialties. Setting: Three colorectal cancer wards and three cardiac rehabilitation facilities. Participants: Inclusion criteria were those who were aged > 18 years, had primary CRC and were post surgery. Results: Phase 1 (single site) – of 34 patient admissions, 24 (70%) were eligible and 4 (17%) participated in cardiac rehabilitation. Sixteen clinicians participated in an interview/focus group. Modifications to trial procedures were made for further testing in phase 2. Additionally, 20 clinicians in all three sites were trained in cancer and exercise, rating it as excellent. Phase 2 (three sites) – screening, eligibility, consent and retention rates were 156 (79%), 133 (67%), 41 (31%) and 38 (93%), respectively. Questionnaire completion rates were 40 (97.5%), 31 (75%) and 25 (61%) at baseline, follow-up 1 and follow-up 2, respectively. Forty (69%) accelerometer data sets were analysed; 20 (31%) were removed owing to invalid data. Qualitative study: CRC and cardiac patients and clinicians were interviewed. Key themes were benefits and barriers for people with CRC attending cardiac rehabilitation; generic versus disease-specific rehabilitation; key concerns of the intervention; and barriers to participation (CRC participants only). Economic evaluation: The average out-of-pocket expenses of attending cardiac rehabilitation were £50. The costs of cardiac rehabilitation for people with cancer are highly dependent on whether it involves accommodating additional patients in an already existing service or setting up a completely new service. Limitations and conclusions: The main limitation is that this is a small feasibility and pilot study. The main novel finding is that cardiac rehabilitation for cancer and cardiac patients together is feasible and acceptable, thereby challenging disease-specific rehabilitation models. Future work: This study highlighted important challenges to doing a full-scale trial of cardiac rehabilitation but does not, we believe, provide sufficient evidence to reject the possibility of such a future trial. We recommend that any future trial must specifically address the challenges identified in this study, such as suboptimal consent, completion, missing data and intervention adherence rates and recruitment bias, and that an internal pilot trial be conducted. This should have clear ‘stop–proceed’ rules that are formally reviewed before proceeding to the full-scale trial. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN63510637. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 4, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Introduction Persistent infection with sexually transmitted, high-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) types is the cause of all cervical cancers and some anogenital and oropharyngeal cancers. HPV is an extremely common asymptomatic infection but little known and poorly understood by the public. Patients with HPV-related cancers have new and challenging information needs due to the complex natural history of HPV and the stigma of sexual transmission. They may ask questions that are outside the remit of the traditional cancer consultation, and there is a lack of guidance on how to counsel them. This study aims to fulfil that need by developing and testing cancer site-specific scripted consultations.Methods and analysis A synthesis of findings generated from previous work, a systematic review of information-based interventions for patients with HPV-related cancers, and interviews with cancer clinicians will provide the evidence base underpinning provisional messages. These will be explored in three phases of face-to-face interviews with 75–90 purposively selected patients recruited in cancer clinics to: (1) select and prioritise the most salient messages, (2) phrase the messages appropriately in plain English and, (3) test their acceptability and usefulness. Phases 1 and 2 will draw on card-sorting methods used in website design. In phase three, we will create cancer site-specific versions of the script and test them using cognitive interviewing techniques.Ethics and dissemination The study has received ethical approval. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The final product will be cancer-specific scripted consultations, most likely in the form of a two-sided information sheet with the most important messages to be conveyed in a consultation on one side, and frequently asked questions for later reading on the reverse. However, they will also be appropriate and readily adaptable to web-based uses.