Roxanne Gal1, Evelyn M Monninkhof1, Carla H van Gils1, Rolf H H Groenwold2, Desirée H J G van den Bongard3, Petra H M Peeters1, Helena M Verkooijen4, Anne M May5. 1. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 4. Imaging Division, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: A.M.May@umcutrecht.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design is an alternative for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and might overcome disadvantages such as difficult recruitment, dropout after randomization to control, and contamination. We investigated the applicability of the TwiCs design in an exercise oncology study regarding the recruitment process, representativeness of the study sample, contamination, participation, and dropout. METHODS: The Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion (UMBRELLA) Fit TwiCs evaluates an exercise intervention in inactive breast cancer patients. Eligible patients participating in the prospective UMBRELLA were identified and randomized. Patients randomized to the intervention (n = 130) were offered the intervention, whereas controls (n = 130) were not informed. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent (n = 68) accepted the intervention. Because this rate was lower than expected, a larger sample size was required than initially estimated (n = 166). However, recruitment of 260 patients was still completed by one researcher within 30 months. Unselective eligibility screening and randomization before invitation improved representativeness. Disadvantage of the design might be inclusion of ineligible patients when cohort information is limited. Furthermore, the design faced higher noncompliance in the intervention group, but prevention of contamination. CONCLUSION: The TwiCs design improved logistics in recruitment and prevented contamination, but noncompliance due to refusal of the intervention was higher compared with conventional pragmatic exercise oncology RCTs, which may dilute the estimated intervention effect.
OBJECTIVES: The Trials within Cohorts (TwiCs) design is an alternative for pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and might overcome disadvantages such as difficult recruitment, dropout after randomization to control, and contamination. We investigated the applicability of the TwiCs design in an exercise oncology study regarding the recruitment process, representativeness of the study sample, contamination, participation, and dropout. METHODS: The Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion (UMBRELLA) Fit TwiCs evaluates an exercise intervention in inactive breast cancerpatients. Eligible patients participating in the prospective UMBRELLA were identified and randomized. Patients randomized to the intervention (n = 130) were offered the intervention, whereas controls (n = 130) were not informed. RESULTS: Fifty-two percent (n = 68) accepted the intervention. Because this rate was lower than expected, a larger sample size was required than initially estimated (n = 166). However, recruitment of 260 patients was still completed by one researcher within 30 months. Unselective eligibility screening and randomization before invitation improved representativeness. Disadvantage of the design might be inclusion of ineligible patients when cohort information is limited. Furthermore, the design faced higher noncompliance in the intervention group, but prevention of contamination. CONCLUSION: The TwiCs design improved logistics in recruitment and prevented contamination, but noncompliance due to refusal of the intervention was higher compared with conventional pragmatic exercise oncology RCTs, which may dilute the estimated intervention effect.
Authors: Magdalena Fandiño-Del-Rio; Josiah L Kephart; Kendra N Williams; Timothy Shade; Temi Adekunle; Kyle Steenland; Luke P Naeher; Lawrence H Moulton; Gustavo F Gonzales; Marilu Chiang; Shakir Hossen; Ryan T Chartier; Kirsten Koehler; William Checkley Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 11.035
Authors: Angel Rosas-Aguirre; Mitchel Guzman-Guzman; Raul Chuquiyauri; Marta Moreno; Paulo Manrique; Roberson Ramirez; Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar; Hugo Rodriguez; Niko Speybroeck; Jan E Conn; Dionicia Gamboa; Joseph M Vinetz; Alejandro Llanos-Cuentas Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2021-04-23 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen; Claudia A Bargon; Marilot C T Batenburg; Roxanne Gal; Danny A Young-Afat; Lilianne E van Stam; Iris E van Dam; Femke van der Leij; Inge O Baas; Miranda F Ernst; Wiesje Maarse; Nieke Vermulst; Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Thijs van Dalen; Rhodé M Bijlsma; Annemiek Doeksen; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Claudia A Bargon; Marilot C T Batenburg; Lilianne E van Stam; Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen; Iris E van Dam; Femke van der Leij; Inge O Baas; Miranda F Ernst; Wiesje Maarse; Nieke Vermulst; Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Thijs van Dalen; Rhodé M Bijlsma; Danny A Young-Afat; Annemiek Doeksen; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2020-11-05
Authors: Dieuwke R Mink van der Molen; Claudia A Bargon; Marilot C T Batenburg; Lilianne E van Stam; Iris E van Dam; Inge O Baas; Miranda F Ernst; Wiesje Maarse; Maartje Sier; Ernst J P Schoenmaeckers; Thijs van Dalen; Rhodé M Bijlsma; Annemiek Doeksen; Femke van der Leij; Danny A Young-Afat; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-12-01 Impact factor: 4.624
Authors: Linda Kwakkenbos; Marie-Eve Carrier; Joep Welling; Kimberly A Turner; Julie Cumin; Mia Pépin; Cornelia van den Ende; Anne A Schouffoer; Marie Hudson; Ward van Breda; Maureen Sauve; Maureen D Mayes; Vanessa L Malcarne; Warren R Nielson; Christelle Nguyen; Isabelle Boutron; François Rannou; Brett D Thombs; Luc Mouthon Journal: PeerJ Date: 2022-08-04 Impact factor: 3.061
Authors: Anna C Bibby; Natalie Zahan-Evans; Emma Keenan; Charles Comins; John E Harvey; Helen Day; Najib M Rahman; Janet E Fallon; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Nick A Maskell Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud Date: 2022-09-03
Authors: Roxanne Gal; Evelyn M Monninkhof; Carla H van Gils; Rolf H H Groenwold; Sjoerd G Elias; Desirée H J G van den Bongard; Petra H M Peeters; Helena M Verkooijen; Anne M May Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-08-24 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: E J Bass; N Klimowska-Nassar; T Sasikaran; E Day; F Fiorentino; M R Sydes; M Winkler; N Arumainayagam; B Khoubehi; A Pope; H Sokhi; T Dudderidge; H U Ahmed Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 2.226