Nationwide comprehensive gastro-intestinal cancer cohorts: the 3P initiative

Abstract Background: The increasing sub-classification of cancer patients due to more detailed molecular classification of tumors, and limitations of current trial designs, require innovative research designs. We present the design, governance and current standing of three comprehensive nationwide cohorts including pancreatic, esophageal/gastric, and colorectal cancer patients (NCT02070146). Multidisciplinary collection of clinical data, tumor tissue, blood samples, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures with a nationwide coverage, provides the infrastructure for future and novel trial designs and facilitates research to improve outcomes of gastrointestinal cancer patients. Material and methods: All patients aged ≥18 years with pancreatic, esophageal/gastric or colorectal cancer are eligible. Patients provide informed consent for: (1) reuse of clinical data; (2) biobanking of primary tumor tissue; (3) collection of blood samples; (4) to be informed about relevant newly identified genomic aberrations; (5) collection of longitudinal PROs; and (6) to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cohort multiple randomized controlled trials (cmRCT) in the future. Results: In 2015, clinical data of 21,758 newly diagnosed patients were collected in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Additional clinical data on the surgical procedures were registered in surgical audits for 13,845 patients. Within the first two years, tumor tissue and blood samples were obtained from 1507 patients; during this period, 1180 patients were included in the PRO registry. Response rate for PROs was 90%. The consent rate to receive information on new interventional studies and possible participation in cmRCTs in the future was >85%. The number of hospitals participating in the cohorts is steadily increasing. Conclusion: A comprehensive nationwide multidisciplinary gastrointestinal cancer cohort is feasible and surpasses the limitations of classical study designs. With this initiative, novel and innovative studies can be performed in an efficient, safe, and comprehensive setting.

[1]  H. Verspaget,et al.  The Parelsnoer Institute: A National Network of Standardized Clinical Biobanks in the Netherlands , 2017 .

[2]  Simon Tavaré,et al.  Mutational signatures in esophageal adenocarcinoma define etiologically distinct subgroups with therapeutic relevance , 2016, Nature Genetics.

[3]  E. Kuipers,et al.  Prospective Dutch colorectal cancer cohort: an infrastructure for long-term observational, prognostic, predictive and (randomized) intervention research , 2016, Acta oncologica.

[4]  R. van Hillegersberg,et al.  Esophageal and Gastric Cancer Pearl: a nationwide clinical biobanking project in the Netherlands. , 2016, Diseases of the esophagus : official journal of the International Society for Diseases of the Esophagus.

[5]  Iris D. Nagtegaal,et al.  The effects of implementing synoptic pathology reporting in cancer diagnosis: a systematic review , 2016, Virchows Archiv.

[6]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[7]  R. Gibbs,et al.  Genomic analyses identify molecular subtypes of pancreatic cancer , 2016, Nature.

[8]  S. Ramsey,et al.  Predicting Low Accrual in the National Cancer Institute's Cooperative Group Clinical Trials. , 2016, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[9]  Jeffrey S. Morris,et al.  The Consensus Molecular Subtypes of Colorectal Cancer , 2015, Nature Medicine.

[10]  Kathleen A Cronin,et al.  The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute. , 2014, Cancer.

[11]  J. Chabot,et al.  Limitations of ACS-NSQIP in Reporting Complications for Patients Undergoing Pancreatectomy: Underscoring the Need for a Pancreas-Specific Module , 2014, World Journal of Surgery.

[12]  Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,et al.  Precompetitive consortia in biomedicine—how are we doing? , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[13]  V. Lemmens,et al.  The Dutch surgical colorectal audit. , 2013, European journal of surgical oncology : the journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology.

[14]  Vincenzo Canzonieri,et al.  An effective multisource informed consent procedure for research and clinical practice: an observational study of patient understanding and awareness of their roles as research stakeholders in a cancer biobank , 2013, BMC medical ethics.

[15]  J. Coebergh,et al.  The Patient Reported Outcomes Following Initial treatment and Long term Evaluation of Survivorship registry: scope, rationale and design of an infrastructure for the study of physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer survivorship cohorts. , 2011, European journal of cancer.

[16]  Jon Nicholl,et al.  Rethinking pragmatic randomised controlled trials: introducing the “cohort multiple randomised controlled trial” design , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[17]  Jacques Ferlay,et al.  NORDCAN – a Nordic tool for cancer information, planning, quality control and research , 2010, Acta oncologica.

[18]  C. Ko,et al.  Does Surgical Quality Improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: An Evaluation of All Participating Hospitals , 2009, Annals of surgery.

[19]  V. Devita The clinical trials system is broken , 2008, Nature Clinical Practice Oncology.

[20]  D. Gandara,et al.  Prospective evaluation of cancer clinical trial accrual patterns: identifying potential barriers to enrollment. , 2001, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  R. Holcombe,et al.  Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. , 1998, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[22]  J. Jager,et al.  Quality of cancer registry data: a comparison of data provided by clinicians with those of registration personnel. , 1993, British Journal of Cancer.

[23]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[24]  P. Levine,et al.  Inflammatory breast cancer: the experience of the surveillance, epidemiology, and end results (SEER) program. , 1985, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[25]  G. Kazemier,et al.  Nationwide prospective audit of pancreatic surgery: design, accuracy, and outcomes of the Dutch Pancreatic Cancer Audit. , 2017, HPB : the official journal of the International Hepato Pancreato Biliary Association.

[26]  S. Kaasa,et al.  The length of consent documents in oncological trials is doubled in twenty years. , 2009, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  A. Kasuya EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. , 1990, Health policy.

[28]  A. Williams EuroQol : a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life , 1990 .