Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is a disabling and difficult-to-treat condition, new treatment options are needed to improve health outcomes. Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation, a non-invasive form of neurostimulation, has shown positive results in a small number of studies as a safe and potentially efficacious treatment for OCD. There nevertheless remains uncertainty about the optimal stimulation protocol, magnitude and duration of effect, acceptability, tolerability and practicality of applying tDCS clinical settings. As existing data are inadequate to support a full-scale trial, we will deliver a feasibility study to address key research questions and knowledge gaps to enable the design and the development of the most efficient, cost effective, definitive trial.

We designed Feasibility And Acceptability Of Transcranial Stimulation In Obsessive Compulsive Symptoms (FEATSOCS), a double-blind, sham-controlled, cross-over randomised multicentre study in 25 adults with OCD. We will stimulate the two most promising cortical sites, the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and the supplementary motor area (SMA). Each participant will receive three courses of tDCS (SMA, OFC and sham), randomly allocated, given in counterbalanced order. Each course comprises four 20 minutes-stimulations, delivered over two consecutive days, separated by at least four weeks’ washout period. Blinded raters will regularly assess clinical outcomes before, during and up to four weeks after stimulation using validated scales. We will include relevant neurocognitive tasks, testing cognitive flexibility, motor disinhibition, cooperation and habit learning.

FEATSOCS trial is currently underway and recruiting. Owing to the impact of COVID-19, a recruitment extension has been granted. At the study end, we will analyse the feasibility outcomes, magnitude of the effect of the interventions on OCD symptoms alongside the standard deviation of the outcome measure to estimate effect size, and determine the optimal stimulation target. We will also measure the duration of the effect of stimulation, to provide information on spacing treatments efficiently. We will evaluate the usefulness and limitations of specific neurocognitive tests to determine a definitive test battery. Qualitative data will be collected from participants to better understand their experience of taking part in a tDCS intervention, the impact on their overall quality of life and their views on the potential of tDCS as home based-intervention.

Further evidence is needed to establish whether tDCS could join the treatment armamentarium of OCD. The clinical outcomes in FEATSOCS will enable to further refine the methodology to ensure optimal efficiency in terms of both delivering and assessing the tDCS in OCD in a full scale trial.

The funder for this study is the National Institute for Health Research Programme, Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB) [Ref. no PB-PG-1216-20005]. Extra funding to allow study extension was provided by Orchard OCD. This study has received full ethics committee approval and protocol amendments approval form the Cambridge and Hertfordshire NHS Research Ethics Committee, IRAS Project ID 254507, REC ref: 19/EE/0046.

Data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the primary source for health technology assessment (HTA) however these are limited by strict patient inclusion criteria, leading to concerns about whether treatment benefit estimates are accurate for all patients (generalizability). Real-World Data (RWD) have been proposed as a solution however as these are observational data there is additional potential for bias when estimating treatment effectiveness. To maximize the utility of RWD it is useful to consider the whole process of evidence generation and robustly address issues of feasibility and validity.

A series of complementary studies investigated whether population-based routinely collected health data from Scotland are suitable for estimating the effectiveness of chemotherapy for early breast cancer. Firstly, a prognostic score was validated in this population. Secondly, a comparison of RWD and randomized trial effectiveness estimates was made to investigate feasibility and validity of several methods – Propensity Score Matching (PSM), Instrumental variables (IV) and Regression Discontinuity. Finally, effectiveness estimates in trial underrepresented groups were produced.

PSM and IV were feasible and produced results in relatively close agreement with randomized data. Effectiveness estimates in trial underrepresented groups (women over 70 years and women with high comorbidity) were consistent with an approximate one-third reduction in the risk of death from breast cancer. This is equivalent to approximately a 3–4 percentage point difference in all cause mortality over 10 years in these groups.

RWD are a feasible for generating estimates of effectiveness of adjuvant chemotherapy in early stage breast cancer. The process of using RWD for this purpose should include careful assessment of data quality and comparison of alternative strategies for causal identification in the context of available randomized data.

As the incidence of cancer and the frequency of extreme weather events rise, disaster mitigation is becoming increasingly relevant to oncology care.

To investigate the effect of natural disasters on cancer care and the associated health effects on patients with cancer through the means of a systematic review.

Between database inception and November 12, 2016, Embase, ScienceDirect, MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for articles. Those identifying the effect of natural disasters on oncology services, or the associated health implications for patients with cancer, were included. Only articles published in English were included. Data extraction was done by two authors independently and then verified by all authors. The effects of disaster events on oncology services, survival outcomes, and psychological issues were assessed.

Natural disasters cause substantial interruption to the provision of oncology care. Of the 4,593 studies identified, only 85 articles met all the eligibility criteria. Damage to infrastructure, communication systems, medication, and medical record losses substantially disrupt oncology care. The effect of extreme weather events on survival outcomes is limited to only a small number of studies, often with inadequate follow-up periods.

To the best the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review to assess the existing evidence base on the health effects of natural disaster events on cancer care. Disaster planning must begin to take into consideration patients with cancer.