Inflammation is a hallmark of cancer and is involved in tumour growth and dissemination. However, the hallmarks of cancer are also the hallmarks of wound healing, and modulating the wound inflammatory response and immune contexture in relation to cancer surgery may represent effective targets of therapies.

Repurposing anti-inflammatory drugs in a cancer setting has gained increasing interest in recent years. Interestingly, the known and thoroughly tested antifibrinolytic drug tranexamic acid reduces the risk of bleeding, but it is also suggested to play important roles in anti-inflammatory pathways, improving wound healing and affecting anti-carcinogenic mechanisms.

As a novel approach, we will conduct a randomised controlled trial using perioperative treatment with tranexamic acid, aiming to prevent early relapses by >10% for patients with melanoma.

Design: investigator-initiated parallel, two-arm, randomised, blinded, Danish multicentre superiority trial.

Patients: ≥T2 b melanoma and eligible for sentinel lymph node biopsy (n=1204).

Project drug: tranexamic acid or placebo.

Treatment: before surgery (intravenous 15 mg/kg) and daily (peroral 1000 mg x 3) through postoperative day 4.

Primary outcome: relapse within 2 years after surgery.

Primary analysis: risk difference between the treatment arms (² test).

Secondary outcomes: postoperative complications, adverse events and survival.

Inclusion period: summer 2023 to summer 2026.

The trial will be initiated during the summer of 2023 and is approved by the National Committee on Health Research Ethics, the Danish Medicine Agency, and registered under the Data Protection Act. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Patients included in the study will adhere to normal Danish treatment protocols and standards of care, and we expect only mild and temporary side effects. Positive and negative results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, with authorships adhering to the Vancouver rules.

NCT05899465; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier.

The Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist was developed as a guidance tool to support the development, comparison and evaluation of self-management support programmes for persons with a chronic condition. The checklist was based on a previously performed concept analysis of self-management. The aim of this study was to validate its content using an international Delphi study and to deliver a final version.

A two-round Delphi study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Using the researchers’ networks, professionals with research or clinical expertise in self-management support and chronic conditions were recruited via online purposive snowball sampling. Participants were asked to score each item of the checklist (16 items total) on 3 content validity indicators: (1) clarity and comprehensibility, (2) relevance and importance and (3) degree of alignment with the overall goal of the checklist to promote adequate and comprehensive self-management support programmes. A consensus threshold of 75% agreement was used. The participants were also asked general questions about the checklist as a whole and were asked to provide feedback considering its refinement.

Fifty-four professionals with an average 14.5 years of experience participated in round 1, 48 with an average 12.5 years of experience participated in round 2. The majority of professionals were from Western Europe. For the majority of items consensus was reached after round 1. In round 2, 3 of the 4 remaining items reached consensus, 1 last item was retained based on highly recurring feedback.

The SMACC checklist was considered a valid and comprehensive tool to aid the development, evaluation and comparison of self-management support programmes. It was acknowledged as a useful instrument to supplement existing frameworks and was seen as feasible to implement in both research and clinical settings. Further validation in the field, with input from patients and peer experts, will be valuable.

Shingrix, an effective adjuvanted, recombinant herpes zoster vaccine (RZV), has been available since 2018. Immunocompromised patients are known to be predisposed to vaccine failure. In-vitro testing of immunological surrogates of vaccine protection could be instrumental for monitoring vaccination success. So far, no test procedure is available for vaccine responses to RZV that could be used on a routine basis.

This is a single-centre, three-arm, parallel, longitudinal cohort study aspiring to recruit a total of 308 patients (103 with a liver cirrhosis Child A/B, 103 after liver transplantation (both ≥50 years), 102 immunocompetent patients (60–70 years)). Blood samples will be taken at seven data collection points to determine varicella zoster virus (VZV) and glycoprotein E (gE)-specific IgG and T cell responses. The primary study outcome is to measure and compare responses after vaccination with RZV depending on the type and degree of immunosuppression using gE-specific antibody detection assays. As a secondary outcome, first, the gE-specific CD4⁺ T cell response of the three cohorts will be compared and, second, the gE-VZV antibody levels will be compared with the severity of possible vaccination reactions. The tertiary outcome is a potential association between VZV immune responses and clinical protection against shingles.

Ethical approval was issued on 07/11/2022 by the Ethics Committee Essen, Germany (number 22-10805-BO). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed open-access journals and presented at local, national and international conferences.

German Clinical Trials Registry (number DRKS00030683).

Current treatment decision-making in high-grade soft-tissue sarcoma (STS) care is not informed by individualised risks for different treatment options and patients’ preferences. Risk prediction tools may provide patients and professionals insight in personalised risks and benefits for different treatment options and thereby potentially increase patients’ knowledge and reduce decisional conflict. The VALUE-PERSARC study aims to assess the (cost-)effectiveness of a personalised risk assessment tool (PERSARC) to increase patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and to reduce decisional conflict in comparison with usual care in high-grade extremity STS patients.

The VALUE-PERSARC study is a parallel cluster randomised control trial that aims to include at least 120 primarily diagnosed high-grade extremity STS patients in 6 Dutch hospitals. Eligible patients (≥18 years) are those without a treatment plan and treated with curative intent. Patients with sarcoma subtypes or treatment options not mentioned in PERSARC are unable to participate. Hospitals will be randomised between usual care (control) or care with the use of PERSARC (intervention). In the intervention condition, PERSARC will be used by STS professionals in multidisciplinary tumour boards to guide treatment advice and in patient consultations, where the oncological/orthopaedic surgeon informs the patient about his/her diagnosis and discusses benefits and harms of all relevant treatment options. The primary outcomes are patients’ knowledge about risks and benefits of treatment options and decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale) 1 week after the treatment decision has been made. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated using questionnaires, 1 week and 3, 6 and 12 months after the treatment decision. Data will be analysed following an intention-to-treat approach using a linear mixed model and taking into account clustering of patients within hospitals.

The Medical Ethical Committee Leiden-Den Haag-Delft (METC-LDD) approved this protocol (NL76563.058.21). The results of this study will be reported in a peer-review journal.

NL9160, NCT05741944.