Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2023 Aug 23:1–38. doi: 10.3310/CLDC7214

Insights from UKCTOCS for design, conduct and analyses of large randomised controlled trials.

Usha Menon, Aleksandra Gentry-Maharaj, Matthew Burnell, Sophia Apostolidou, Andy Ryan, Jatinderpal K Kalsi, Naveena Singh, Lesley Fallowfield, Alistair J McGuire, Stuart Campbell, Steven J Skates, Anne Dawnay, Mahesh Parmar, Ian J Jacobs; UKCTOCS team
PMCID: PMC10591208  PMID: 37843101

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Randomised controlled trials are challenging to deliver. There is a constant need to review and refine recruitment and implementation strategies if they are to be completed on time and within budget. We present the strategies adopted in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest individually randomised controlled trials in the world. The trial recruited over 202,000 women (2001-5) and delivered over 670,000 annual screens (2001-11) and over 3 million women-years of follow-up (2001-20). Key to the successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in the day-to-day running of the trial, proactive trial management and willingness to innovate and use technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to contact either the site or the coordinating centre teams for clarifications about their results, for follow-up and for rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared personal identifiers (with consent) with both teams and had dedicated reception staff at both site and coordinating centre. Key aspects were a comprehensive online trial management system which included an electronic data capture system (resulting in an almost paperless trial), biobanking, monitoring and project management modules. The automation of algorithms (to ascertain eligibility and classify results and ensuing actions) and processes (scheduling of appointments, printing of letters, etc.) ensured the protocol was closely followed and timelines were met. Significant engagement with participants ensured retention and low rates of complaints. Our solutions to the design, conduct and analyses issues we faced are highly relevant, given the renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

FUTURE WORK

There is a pressing need to increase the evidence base to support decision making about all aspects of trial methodology.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN-22488978; ClinicalTrials.gov-NCT00058032.

FUNDING

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number 16/46/01. The long-term follow-up UKCTOCS (2015 20) was supported by National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR HTA grant 16/46/01), Cancer Research UK, and The Eve Appeal. UKCTOCS (2001-14) was funded by the MRC (G9901012 and G0801228), Cancer Research UK (C1479/A2884), and the UK Department of Health, with additional support from The Eve Appeal. Researchers at UCL were supported by the NIHR UCL Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre and by the MRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL core funding (MC_UU_00004/09, MC_UU_00004/08, MC_UU_00004/07). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the UK Department of Health and Social Care.

Plain language summary

Randomised controlled trials help us decide whether new health-care approaches are better than those in current use. To successfully complete these on time and within budget, there is a constant need to review and revise the procedures used for delivering various aspects such as invitation, enrolment, follow-up of participants, delivery of the new test, data collection, and analysis. We report on the processes used in the United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening, one of the largest such trials. The United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening enrolled over 202,000 women (2001–5), delivered over 670,000 yearly screens (2001–11) and followed all participants until 2020. Key to our successful completion were the involvement of senior investigators in day-to-day running of the trial, a pre-emptive approach to issues, a willingness to innovate, and the use of technology. Our underlying ethos was that trial participants should always be at the centre of all our processes. We ensured that they were able to always contact either their local or the central team for clarifications and rescheduling of appointments. To facilitate this, we shared participant contact details (with consent) with both teams. We built a comprehensive electronic system to manage all aspects of the trial. This included online forms that the teams completed in real time (resulting in an almost paperless trial) and systems to check and manage trial processes and track blood samples. We automated key steps such as checking whether participants were eligible, assigning correct action based on results of screening tests, scheduling appointments and printing letters. As a result, all participants were treated as set out in the trial plan. Our engagement with participants ensured that they continued participating and we had a low rate of complaints. We faced issues with regard to our initial trial design and the way we planned to analyse the data. We feel that our solutions are highly relevant, especially as there is a renewed focus on trials for early detection of cancer.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. ISCRTN. ISCRTN Registry of Clinical Studies 2022. URL: https://www.isrctn.com/search?q=randomised+controlled+&filters=GT+dateApplied%3A2010-01-01T00%3A00%3A00.000Z%2CLE+dateApplied%3A2021-12-31T00%3A00%3A00.000Z&searchType=advanced-search (accessed 4 May 2022).
  2. MRC. MRC-NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership (TMRP) 2015. URL: https://www.methodologyhubs.mrc.ac.uk/about/tmrp/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
  3. Walters SJ, Bonacho Dos Anjos Henriques-Cadby I, Bortolami O, Flight L, Hind D, Jacques RM, et al. Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a review of trials funded and published by the United Kingdom Health Technology Assessment Programme. BMJ Open 2017;7(3):e015276. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015276. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrom M, Johansen M, et al. Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2013;3(2):e002360. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002360. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Apostolidou S, Habib M, Kalsi J, et al. Impact on mortality and cancer incidence rates of using random invitation from population registers for recruitment to trials. Trials 2011;12:61. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-12-61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Singh N, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, et al. Ovarian cancer population screening and mortality after long-term follow-up in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2021;397(10290):2182–93. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00731-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. CRUK. Deprivation Gradient in Ovarian Cancer Mortality 2014. URL: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/ovarian-cancer/mortality#heading-Four (accessed 4 May 2022).
  8. Church TR, Ederer F, Mandel JS, Watt GD, Geisser MS. Estimating the duration of ongoing prevention trials. Am J Epidemiol 1993;137(7):797–810. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aje.a116740. [DOI] [PubMed]
  9. Pinsky PF, Miller A, Kramer BS, Church T, Reding D, Prorok P, et al. Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian cancer screening trial. Am J Epidemiol 2007;165(8):874–81. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwk075. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. CRUK. Ovarian Cancer Statistics: Ovarian Cancer Mortality 2018. URL: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/ovarian-cancer#heading-One (accessed 25 August 2021).
  11. Tabar L, Fagerberg CJ, Gad A, Baldetorp L, Holmberg LH, Grontoft O, et al. Reduction in mortality from breast cancer after mass screening with mammography. Randomised trial from the Breast Cancer Screening Working Group of the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare. Lancet 1985;1(8433):829–32. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(85)92204-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Atkin WS, Edwards R, Kralj-Hans I, Wooldrage K, Hart AR, Northover JM, et al.; UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial Investigators. Once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in prevention of colorectal cancer: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010;375(9726):1624–33. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60551-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Holme O, Loberg M, Kalager M, Bretthauer M, Hernan MA, Aas E, et al. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2014;312(6):606–15. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8266. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Aberle DR, Adams AM, Berg CD, Black WC, Clapp JD, Fagerstrom RM, et al.; National Lung Screening Trial Research TeamNational Lung Screening Trial Research Team. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with low-dose computed tomographic screening. N Engl J Med 2011;365(5):395–409. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1102873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Schoen RE, Pinsky PF, Weissfeld JL, Yokochi LA, Church T, Laiyemo AO, et al.; PLCO Project Team. Colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality with screening flexible sigmoidoscopy. N Engl J Med 2012;366(25):2345–57. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1114635. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Schroder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, Tammela TL, Ciatto S, Nelen V, et al.; ERSPC Investigators. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomized European study. N Engl J Med 2009;360(13):1320–8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0810084. [DOI] [PubMed]
  17. Etzioni RD, Thompson IM. What do the screening trials really tell us and where do we go from here? Urol Clin North Am 2014;41(2):223–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2014.01.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  18. Hanley JA. Measuring mortality reductions in cancer screening trials. Epidemiol Rev 2011;33:36–45. doi: 10.1093/epirev/mxq021. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Bjurstam N, Bjorneld L, Duffy SW, Smith TC, Cahlin E, Eriksson O, et al. The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 1997;80(11):2091–9. [PubMed]
  20. Moss SM, Wale C, Smith R, Evans A, Cuckle H, Duffy SW. Effect of mammographic screening from age 40 years on breast cancer mortality in the UK Age trial at 17 years’ follow-up: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Oncol 2015;16(9):1123–32. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00128-X. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. Segnan N, Armaroli P, Bonelli L, Risio M, Sciallero S, Zappa M, et al.; SCORE Working Group. Once-only sigmoidoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: follow-up findings of the Italian Randomized Controlled Trial--SCORE. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103(17):1310–22. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr284. [DOI] [PubMed]
  22. Jacobs IJ, Menon U, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Burnell M, Kalsi JK, et al. Ovarian cancer screening and mortality in the UK Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2016;387(10022):945–56. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01224-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  23. Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Skates SJ, Ryan A, Karpinskyj C, Kalsi J, et al. UKCTOCS update: applying insights of delayed effects in cancer screening trials to the long-term follow-up mortality analysis. Trials 2021;22(1):173. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05125-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Royston P. Power and sample-size analysis for the Royston–Parmar combined test in clinical trials with a time-to-event outcome. Stata J 2018;18(4):995–6. https://doi.org./10.1177/1536867X1801800414
  25. Royston P, Choodari-Oskooei B, Parmar MKB, Rogers JK. Combined test versus logrank/Cox test in 50 randomised trials. Trials 2019;20(1):172. doi: 10.1186/s13063-019-3251-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  26. Karrison TG. Versatile tests for comparing survival curves based on weighted log-rank statistics. Stata J 2016;16(3):678–90.
  27. DeSantis T, Chakhtoura N, Twiggs L, Ferris D, Lashgari M, Flowers L, et al. Spectroscopic imaging as a triage test for cervical disease: a prospective multicenter clinical trial. J Low Genit Tract Dis 2007;11(1):18–24. doi: 10.1097/01.lgt.0000230207.50495.05. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Campbell MK, Snowdon C, Francis D, Elbourne D, McDonald AM, Knight R, et al.; STEPS group. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. Health Technol Assess 2007;11(48):iii, ix–105. doi: 10.3310/hta11480. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. ISO. Information Technology — Security Techniques — Information Security Management Systems — Requirements 2013. URL: https://www.iso.org/standard/54534.html (accessed 4 May 2022).
  30. NHS. Data Security and Protection Toolkit 2022. URL: https://www.dsptoolkit.nhs.uk/ (accessed 04 May 2022).
  31. Zhang J, Sun L, Liu Y, Wang H, Sun N, Zhang P. Mobile device-based electronic data capture system used in a clinical randomized controlled trial: advantages and challenges. J Med Internet Res 2017;19(3):e66. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6978. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Ruth CJ, Huey SL, Krisher JT, Fothergill A, Gannon BM, Jones CE, et al. An Electronic Data Capture Framework (ConnEDCt) for Global and Public Health Research: Design and Implementation. J Med Internet Res 2020;22(8):e18580. doi: 10.2196/18580. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Kasenda B, Liu J, Jiang Y, Gajewski B, Wu C, von Elm E, et al. Prediction of RECRUITment In randomized clinical Trials (RECRUIT-IT)-rationale and design for an international collaborative study. Trials 2020;21(1):731. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04666-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  34. Huang GD, Bull J, Johnston McKee K, Mahon E, Harper B, Roberts JN, et al.; CTTI Recruitment Project Team. Clinical trials recruitment planning: a proposed framework from the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative. Contemp Clin Trials 2018;66:74–9. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2018.01.003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Desai M. Recruitment and retention of participants in clinical studies: critical issues and challenges. Perspect Clin Res 2020;11(2):51–3. doi: 10.4103/picr.PICR_6_20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  36. Menon U, Gentry-Maharaj A, Ryan A, Sharma A, Burnell M, Hallett R, et al. Recruitment to multicentre trials – lessons from UKCTOCS: descriptive study. BMJ 2008;337:a2079. doi: 10.1136/bmj.a2079. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  37. NHS. NHS Digitrials - Setting up the Trial ‘NHS-GALLERI - a test designed to detect early signs of cancer’ 2022. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/nhs-digitrials#setting-up-the-trial (accessed 4 May 2022).
  38. Williams JG, Cheung WY, Cohen DR, Hutchings HA, Longo MF, Russell IT. Can randomised trials rely on existing electronic data? A feasibility study to explore the value of routine data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2003;7(26):iii, v-x, 1-117. doi:10.3310/hta7260. PMID: 14499049. doi: 10.3310/hta7260. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. UKBiobank. UK Biobank 2022. URL: https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/learn-more-about-uk-biobank/about-us (accessed 4 May 2022).
  40. Sullivan FM. Improving recruitment to clinical trials with a register of a million patients who agree to the use of their clinical records for research in the Scottish Health Research Register (SHARE). Trials 2011;12(Suppl 1):A115.
  41. Staley H, Shiraz A, Shreeve N, Bryant A, Martin-Hirsch PP, Gajjar K. Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021;9:CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Panopto. Clinical Trial Video Communications: Building A Partnership with Patients Through Education 2018. URL: https://www.panopto.com/blog/video-for-clinical-trials-a-partnership-with-patients-through-education/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
  43. PMLive. Using Video to Enhance Clinical Trial Patient Recruitment and Retention 2020. URL: https://www.pmlive.com/pmhub/clinical_research/couch_integrated_marketing/white_papers_and_resources/using_video_to_enhance_clinical_trial_patient_recruitment_and_retention (accessed 4 May 2022).
  44. Frampton GK, Shepherd J, Pickett K, Griffiths G, Wyatt JC. Digital tools for the recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials: a systematic map. Trials 2020;21(1):478. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04358-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  45. Avis NE, Smith KW, Link CL, Goldman MB. Increasing mammography screening among women over age 50 with a videotape intervention. Prev Med 2004;39(3):498–506. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2004.05.024. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Signorelli C, Wakefield CE, McLoone JK, Mateos MK, Aaronson NK, Lavoipierre A, et al.; ANZCHOG Survivorship Study Group. A cost-effective approach to increasing participation in patient-reported outcomes research in cancer: a randomized trial of video invitations. Int J Cancer 2021;148(4):971–80. doi: 10.1002/ijc.33244. [DOI] [PubMed]
  47. Treweek S, Bevan S, Bower P, Campbell M, Christie J, Clarke M, et al. Trial Forge Guidance 1: what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)? Trials 2018;19(1):139. doi: 10.1186/s13063-018-2535-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  48. York. University of York – Trial Forge Studies Within A Trial (SWAT) Centre 2022. URL: https://www.york.ac.uk/healthsciences/research/trials/swats/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
  49. Cockayne S, Adamson J, Bower P, Corbacho B, Fairhurst C, Farndon L, et al. The REFORM patient information sheet sub study – an embedded trial evaluating the enhancement of patient information sheets to improve recruitment. Trials 2015;16(Suppl. 2):P87. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-P87
  50. Hughes-Morley A, Hann M, Fraser C, Meade O, Lovell K, Young B, et al. The impact of advertising patient and public involvement on trial recruitment: embedded cluster randomised recruitment trial. Trials 2016;17(1):586. doi: 10.1186/s13063-016-1718-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  51. Arundel C, Jefferson L, Bailey M, Cockayne S, Hicks K, Loughrey L, et al.; REFORM Study Team. A randomized, embedded trial of pre-notification of trial participation did not increase recruitment rates to a falls prevention trial. J Eval Clin Pract 2017;23(1):73–8. doi: 10.1111/jep.12576. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Lewis H, Keding A, Bosanquet K, Gilbody S, Torgerson D. An randomized controlled trial of Post-It® Notes did not increase postal response rates in older depressed participants. J Eval Clin Pract 2017;23(1):102–7. doi: 10.1111/jep.12618. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Mitchell N, Hewitt CE, Torgerson DJ, Group ST. A controlled trial of envelope colour for increasing response rates in older women. Aging Clin Exp Res 2011;23(3):236–40. doi: 10.1007/BF03337749. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Antidote. 7 Clinical Trial Patient Recruitment and Retention Tips 2022. URL: https://www.antidote.me/blog/7-clinical-trial-recruitment-and-retention-tips (accessed 4 May 2022).
  55. Skates S. Screening based on the risk of cancer calculation from Bayesian hierarchical changepoint and mixture models of longitudinal markers. J Am Stat Assoc 2001;96(454):429–39.
  56. Sharma A, Burnell M, Gentry-Maharaj A, Campbell S, Amso NN, Seif MW, et al. Quality assurance and its impact on ovarian visualization rates in the multicenter United Kingdom Collaborative Trial of Ovarian Cancer Screening (UKCTOCS). Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2016;47(2):228–35. doi: 10.1002/uog.14929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Naidoo N, Nguyen VT, Ravaud P, Young B, Amiel P, Schante D, et al. The research burden of randomized controlled trial participation: a systematic thematic synthesis of qualitative evidence. BMC Med 2020;18(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1476-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  58. Resnik DB. Re-consenting human subjects: ethical, legal and practical issues. J Med Ethics 2009;35(11):656–7. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.030338. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  59. UKLWC. Publications Utilising Samples and/or Data from the UKLWC Biobank 2020. URL: http://uklwc.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk/publications/ (accessed 4 May 2022).
  60. Lensen S, Macnair A, Love SB, Yorke-Edwards V, Noor NM, Martyn M, et al. Access to routinely collected health data for clinical trials – review of successful data requests to UK registries. Trials 2020;21(1):398. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04329-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  61. McKay AJ, Jones AP, Gamble CL, Farmer AJ, Williamson PR. Use of routinely collected data in a UK cohort of publicly funded randomised clinical trials. F1000Res 2021;9:323. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.23316.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  62. NCRAS. Cancer Outcomes and Services Dataset (COSD) 2010. URL: http://www.ncin.org.uk/collecting_and_using_data/data_collection/cosd (accessed 30 September 2022).
  63. NHS. NHS Digital 2022. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/ (accessed 30 September 2022).
  64. NHS. NHS Digitrials 2022. URL: https://digital.nhs.uk/services/nhs-digitrials#how-to-get-data-from-nhs-digitrials-for-your-research (accessed 30 September 2022).
  65. Kalsi JK, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Margolin-Crump D, Singh N, Burnell M, et al. Completeness and accuracy of national cancer and death registration for outcome ascertainment in trials-an ovarian cancer exemplar. Trials 2021;22(1):88. doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04968-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Gaba F, Robbani S, Singh N, McCluggage WG, Wilkinson N, Ganesan R, et al.; PROTECTOR Team. Preventing Ovarian Cancer through early Excision of Tubes and late Ovarian Removal (PROTECTOR): protocol for a prospective non-randomised multi-center trial. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2021;31(2):286–91. doi: 10.1136/ijgc-2020-001541. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  67. Feng Z, Kagan J, Pepe M, Thornquist M, Ann Rinaudo J, Dahlgren J, et al. The Early Detection Research Network’s specimen reference sets: paving the way for rapid evaluation of potential biomarkers. Clin Chem 2013;59(1):68–74. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2012.185140. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Pepe MS, Li CI, Feng Z. Improving the quality of biomarker discovery research: the right samples and enough of them. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24(6):944–50. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-1227. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Blyuss O, Burnell M, Ryan A, Gentry-Maharaj A, Marino IP, Kalsi J, et al. Comparison of longitudinal CA125 algorithms as a first-line screen for ovarian cancer in the general population. Clin Cancer Res 2018;24(19):4726–33. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-18-0208. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Gentry-Maharaj A, Blyuss O, Ryan A, Burnell M, Karpinskyj C, Gunu R, et al. Multi-marker longitudinal algorithms incorporating HE4 and CA125 in ovarian cancer screening of postmenopausal women. Cancers (Basel) 2020;12(7):1931. https://doi.org./10.3390/cancers12071931 doi: 10.3390/cancers12071931. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. OurFutureHealth. Our Future Health – Research Programme 2022. URL: https://ourfuturehealth.org.uk/research-programme/ (accessed 29 April 2022).
  72. Crocker J, Hughes-Morley A, Petit-Zeman S, Rees S. Assessing the impact of patient and public involvement on recruitment and retention in clinical trials: a systematic review. Trials 2015;16(Suppl. 2):O91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-16-S2-O91
  73. Green S, Tuck S, Long J, Green T, Green A, Ellis P, et al. ReIMAGINE: a prostate cancer research consortium with added value through its patient and public involvement and engagement. Res Involv Engagem 2021;7(1):81. doi: 10.1186/s40900-021-00322-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. UKCTOCS. Media Coverage 2021. URL: http://ukctocs.mrcctu.ucl.ac.uk/news/ (accessed 5 May 2022).
  75. UKCTOCS. Animated Abstract 2021. URL: https://vimeo.com/546075178 (accessed 4 May 2022).

RESOURCES