The Quadrivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccine Evaluation Study with Addition of the Nonavalent Vaccine Study (QUEST-ADVANCE) aims to provide insight into the long-term immunogenicity and effectiveness of one, two and three HPV vaccine doses. Here, we describe the protocol for QUEST-ADVANCE.

QUEST-ADVANCE is an observational cohort study including males and females who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with the quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine in British Columbia, Canada. Female participants who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with 1–3 doses of the quadrivalent or nonavalent HPV vaccine at 9–14 years of age will be recruited approximately 5 or 12 years postvaccination eligibility. Male participants who are unvaccinated or vaccinated with 1 or 2 doses of the nonavalent HPV vaccine at 9–14 years of age will be recruited at approximately 5 years postvaccination eligibility. The study involves a maximum of four visits over a period of 4–5 years for female participants, and two visits over a 12-month period for male participants. At each visit, self-collected swabs (cervico-vaginal or penile) and questionnaire data will be collected. In each study group, a subset of participants will be invited to participate in a substudy evaluating the long-term humoral immunogenicity of the HPV vaccine. Additional blood samples will be collected from participants who are part of the immunogenicity substudy. The total required sample size is 7180 individuals. The primary objectives are (1) to examine vaccine effectiveness in males and females against prevalent genital HPV infections for one, two and three doses of the HPV vaccine compared with unvaccinated participants and (2) to evaluate if there is non-inferior immunogenicity as indicated by type-specific antibody response of one dose of the HPV vaccine in 20–27-year-old females vaccinated at 9–14 years of age compared with historical data of three doses of the HPV vaccine females vaccinated at 16–26 years of age up to 12 years postvaccination.

QUEST-ADVANCE was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the University of British Columbia/Children’s and Women’s Health Centre of British Columbia (H20-02111). Individual electronic informed consent or assent will be obtained from each participant before any study-specific procedures are undertaken. Results will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal and on the study website.

Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 20.01 CHEST-RT (Chemotherapy and Immunotherapy in Extensive Stage Small cell with Thoracic Radiotherapy) is a single-arm, open-label, prospective, multicentre phase II trial study that aims to establish the safety, feasibility and describe the efficacy of incorporating thoracic radiotherapy (TRT) (concurrent or sequential) to chemotherapy and immunotherapy in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.

A single arm of up to 30 evaluable participants given TRT concurrent or sequentially with chemoimmunotherapy will be enrolled. Participants should commence radiotherapy with cycle 3 or cycle 4 of chemotherapy. Those not suitable for concurrent radiotherapy due to large tumour volumes may receive sequential radiotherapy. Accounting for a 15% non-evaluable rate, up to 35 participants will be enrolled. An independent data and safety monitoring committee will review the data and assess safety and feasibility. Progression to a phase III trial would be considered feasible if ≤20% of participants experienced ≥grade 3 oesophageal toxicity and ≤10% experienced ≥grade 3 pneumonitis. This approach would be considered feasible if there is ≤20% treatment discontinuation of systemic therapy secondary to radiation toxicities and ≥75% of participants have tumour volumes that can be safely treated to a dose of 30 Gy in 10 fractions. The primary outcome of the trial is safety and feasibility, and survival and responses will be assessed as secondary endpoints. A predefined subgroup analysis of toxicity will be performed on group 1 (concurrent TRT) versus group 2 participants (consolidation TRT).

This study was approved by the Peter MacCallum Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/73189/PMCC-2021). The protocol, technical and clinical data will be disseminated by conference presentations and publications. Any modifications to the protocol will be formally documented by administrative letters and will be submitted to the approving HREC for review and approval.

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12621000586819) and ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT05796089).

This study aimed to explore what intervention specificities or attributes newly diagnosed individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) find important and to explore possible reasons behind their evaluations.

A stepwise approach began with a systematic literature review to identify significant attributes. Patients with MS then assessed these attributes through an online survey, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended questions. Finally, the results were evaluated by the clinical team to select the most relevant factors for personalised care.

From June 2023 to December 2023, all consecutive patients referred to the MS Center of Careggi University Hospital were screened for inclusion. Following recruitment, cognitive and physical assessments were administered at the Don Gnocchi Centre. All participants were interviewed by an experienced neuropsychologist.

Participants were enrolled in the RELIABLE clinical trial, which included a ranking exercise and open-ended question. In the ranking exercise, patients prioritised levels of treatment attributes: treatment effects, methods of intervention, type of monitoring, monitoring, mode and mental support. The open-ended questions addressed the reasons behind the level rankings.

Participants’ rankings revealed the most important levels of each attribute. The highest-ranked method of intervention was disease-modifying treatment, which received 164 points. For mental support, individual psychotherapy was deemed most important with 149 points. Preservation of cognitive function, a key treatment effect, received 144 points. Clinical check-ups were the top type of monitoring with 129 points. Lastly, the hybrid mode of monitoring (half remote/half in-person) was ranked with 77 points. Open-ended responses provided insights into the reasons behind these preferences, emphasising the importance of maintaining mobility, cognitive function and emotional well-being. The clinical team evaluated these findings, confirming that the selected attributes were both clinically relevant and aligned with patient priorities. This evaluation process ensured that the treatment specificities chosen for individualised care were comprehensive and reflective of patient needs.

By identifying and prioritising key treatment attributes, this research highlights the multifaceted nature of MS management and emphasises the importance of aligning treatment options with patient preferences. Addressing these factors through further quantitative preference assessments is essential for preventative MS care, improving patient outcomes and promoting a more patient-centred approach to treatment.