Clinical Trials in High-Risk Medulloblastoma: Evolution of the SIOP-Europe HR-MB Trial

Medulloblastoma patients receive adapted therapies stratified according to their risk-profile. Favourable, standard, and high disease-risk groups are each defined by the status of clinical and pathological risk factors, alongside an evolving repertoire of diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers. Medulloblastoma clinical trials in Europe are coordinated by the International Society for Paediatric Oncology (SIOP-Europe) brain tumour group. Favourable and standard-risk patients are eligible for the SIOP-PNET5-MB clinical trial protocol. In contrast, therapies for high-risk disease worldwide have, to date, encompassed a range of different treatment philosophies, with no clear consensus on approach. Higher radiotherapy doses are typically deployed, delivered either conventionally or in hyper-fractionated/accelerated regimens. Similarly, both standard and high-dose chemotherapies were assessed. However, trials to date in high-risk medulloblastoma have commonly been institutional or national, based on modest cohort sizes, and have not evaluated the relative performance of different strategies in a randomised fashion. We describe the concepts and design of the SIOP-E high-risk medulloblastoma clinical trial (SIOP-HR-MB), the first international biomarker-driven, randomised, clinical trial for high-risk medulloblastoma. SIOP-HR-MB is programmed to recruit >800 patients in 16 countries across Europe; its primary objectives are to assess the relative efficacies of the alternative established regimens. The HR-MB patient population is molecularly and clinically defined, and upfront assessments incorporate a standardised central review of molecular pathology, radiology, and radiotherapy quality assurance. Secondary objectives include the assessment of (i) novel therapies within an upfront ‘window’ and (ii) therapy-associated neuropsychology, toxicity, and late effects, alongside (iii) the collection of materials for comprehensive integrated studies of biological determinants within the SIOP-HR-MB cohort.

Back2Action: effectiveness of physiotherapy blended with eHealth consisting of pain education and behavioural activation versus physiotherapy alone—protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial for people with subacute or persistent spinal pain

IntroductionPsychosocial factors predict recovery in patients with spinal pain. Several of these factors are modifiable, such as depression and anxiety. However, primary care physiotherapists who typically manage these patients indicate that they do not feel sufficiently competent and equipped to address these factors optimally. We developed an eHealth intervention with a focus on pain education and behavioural activation to support physiotherapists in managing psychosocial factors in patients with spinal pain. This paper describes the protocol for a pragmatic randomised clinical trial, which evaluates the effectiveness of this eHealth intervention blended with physiotherapy compared with physiotherapy alone.Methods and analysisParticipants with non-specific low back pain and/or neck pain for at least 6 weeks who also have psychosocial risk factors associated with the development or maintenance of persistent pain will be recruited in a pragmatic multicentre cluster randomised clinical trial. The experimental intervention consists of physiotherapy blended with six online modules of pain education and behavioural activation. The control intervention consists of usual care physiotherapy. The primary outcomes are disability (Oswestry Disability Index for low back pain and Neck Disability Index for neck pain) and perceived effect (Global Perceived Effect). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at 2, 6 and 12 months after baseline. The results will be analysed using linear mixed models.Ethics and disseminationThe study is approved by the Medical Ethical Committee of VU Medical Center Amsterdam, The Netherlands (2017.286). Results will be reported in peer-reviewed journals, at national and international conferences, and in diverse media to share the findings with patients, clinicians and the public.Trial registration numberNL 5941; The Netherlands Trial Register.

Universal Adhesives and Adhesion Modes in Non-Carious Cervical Restorations: 2-Year Randomised Clinical Trial

This prospective, double-blind, six-arm parallel randomised controlled trial aimed to compare the performance of two universal adhesives (UAs) in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs), using the FDI criteria, and analysed if participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced the outcome. Thirty-eight 18- to 65-year-old participants were seeking routine dental care at a university clinic. At baseline, 210 NCCLs were randomly allocated to six groups (35 restorations’ each). The UAs tested were FuturabondU (FBU) and AdheseUniversal (ADU) applied in either etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE) modes. FuturabondDC (FBDC) in SE and in SE with selective enamel etching (SE-EE) modes were controls. NCCLs were restored with AdmiraFusion. The analysis included nonparametric tests, Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (α = 0.05). At 2-years, of 191 restorations, ten were missed due to retention loss (all groups, p > 0.05). FBDC (p = 0.037) and FBU (p = 0.041) performed worse than ADU in SE mode. FBDC and FBU also showed worse functional success rate (p = 0.012, p = 0.007, respectively) and cumulative retention rates (p = 0.022, p = 0.012, respectively) than ADU. Some participants/NCCLs’ characteristics influenced (p < 0.05) the outcomes. FBU did not perform as well as ADU, especially in SE mode and due to functional properties. Participants’ age and NCCLs’ degree of dentin sclerosis and internal shape angle influenced FBU performance.