Suchergebnisse

The Spanish imperfect subjunctive verb tense has two competing forms –ra and –se which vary in frequency of use according to the country of usage, the dominant political power, the century in question and context. These two forms of the imperfect subjunctive have their origin in two different verb tenses in Latin, namely the pluperfect indicative (amaveram Latin amara Spanish) and pluperfect subjunctive (amavissem Latinamase Spanish). This present study of peninsular Spanish is a diachronic examination of the hypothesis that the –se form has gradually decreased in use while its opposing form has gradually increased in use resulting in a linguistic shift of the imperfect subjunctive. In this preliminary study of the –se/-ra forms from early Castilian to modern Spanish, special consideration will be given to contextual variables affecting the selection of –ra or –se forms. These variables include the type of literature and the differing levels of formality thereof (narrative, historical and scientific prose) in which the verb forms are found in order to analyze the selection of one form or another as a potential function of the class of literature. Another factor under examination is the placement of the verb within the protasis or apodosis of the sentence (the if or then clause) to analyze the degree to which the reality vs. the probable/hypothetical nature of an action affects the verb choice. A review of the related literature, the analysis of data samples, historic linguistic trends and correlations observed in the usage of the imperfect subjunctive will be presented.

BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the fourth most common type of cancer in the United Kingdom and the second leading cause of cancer death. Despite improvements in CRC survival over time, Scotland lags behind its UK and European counterparts. In this study, we carry out an exploratory analysis which aims to provide contemporary, population level evidence on CRC treatment and survival in Scotland.
MethodsWe conducted a retrospective population-based analysis of adults with incident CRC registered on the Scottish Cancer Registry (Scottish Morbidity Record 06 (SMR06)) between January 2006 and December 2018. The CRC cohort was linked to hospital inpatient (SMR01) and National Records of Scotland (NRS) deaths records allowing a description of their demographic, diagnostic and treatment characteristics. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to explore the demographic and clinical factors associated with all-cause mortality and CRC specific mortality after adjusting for patient and tumour characteristics among people identified as early-stage and treated with surgery.
ResultsOverall, 32,691 (73%) and 12,184 (27%) patients had a diagnosis of colon and rectal cancer respectively, of whom 55% and 53% were early-stage and treated with surgery. Five year overall survival (CRC specific survival) within this cohort was 72% (82%) and 76% (84%) for patients with colon and rectal cancer respectively. Cox proportional hazards models revealed significant variation in mortality by sex, area-based deprivation and geographic location.
ConclusionsIn a Scottish population of patients with early-stage CRC treated with surgery, there was significant variation in risk of death, even after accounting for clinical factors and patient characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than ...

Introduction: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. Methods: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. Results: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. Discussion: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

IntroductionCurrent understanding of cancer patients, their treatment pathways and outcomes relies mainly on information from clinical trials and prospective research studies representing a selected sub-set of the patient population. Whole-population analysis is necessary if we are to assess the true impact of new interventions or policy in a real-world setting. Accurate measurement of geographic variation in healthcare use and outcomes also relies on population-level data. Routine access to such data offers efficiency in research resource allocation and a basis for policy that addresses inequalities in care provision.
ObjectiveAcknowledging these benefits, the objective of this project was to create a population level dataset in Scotland of patients with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer (CRC).
MethodsThis paper describes the process of creating a novel, national dataset in Scotland.
ResultsIn total, thirty two separate healthcare administrative datasets have been linked to provide a comprehensive resource to investigate the management pathways and outcomes for patients with CRC in Scotland, as well as the costs of providing CRC treatment. This is the first time that chemotherapy prescribing and national audit datasets have been linked with the Scottish Cancer Registry on a national scale.
ConclusionsWe describe how the acquired dataset can be used as a research resource and reflect on the data access challenges relating to its creation. Lessons learned from this process and the policy implications for future studies using administrative cancer data are highlighted.

This study widens the transferability of cost-utility results from the SCOT trial showing that administering 3 months of adjuvant, oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy is cost-effective and cost saving compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries recruited to SCOT. The impact on healthcare budgets if the findings are implemented as predicted will amount to savings of at least US$150 million over 5 years. Background: The Short Course Oncology Treatment (SCOT) trial demonstrated non-inferiority, less toxicity, and cost-effectiveness from a UK perspective of 3 versus 6 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy for patients with colorectal cancer. This study assessed the cost-effectiveness of shorter treatment and the budget impact of implementing trial findings from the perspectives of all countries recruited to SCOT: Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Patients and Methods: Individual cost-utility analyses were performed from the perspective of each country. Resource, quality of life, and survival estimates from the SCOT trial (N = 6065) were used. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis and subgroup analyses were undertaken. Using undiscounted costs from these cost-utility analyses, the impact on country-specific healthcare budgets of implementing the SCOT trial findings was calculated over a 5-year period. The currency used was US dollars (US$), and 2019 was the base year. One-way and scenario sensitivity analysis addressed uncertainty within the budget impact analysis. Results: Three months of treatment were cost saving and cost-effective compared to 6 months from the perspective of all countries. The incremental net monetary benefit per patient ranged from US$8972 (Spain) to US$13,884 (Denmark). The healthcare budget impact over 5 years for the base-case scenario ranged from US$3.6 million (New Zealand) to US$61.4 million (UK) and totaled over US$150 million across all countries. Conclusion: This study has widened the transferability of results from the SCOT trial, showing that shorter treatment is cost-effective from a multi-country perspective. The vast savings from implementation could fully justify the investment in conducting the SCOT trial.

OBJECTIVES: The GETAFIX trial will test the hypothesis that favipiravir is a more effective treatment for COVID-19 infection in patients who have early stage disease, compared to current standard of care. This study will also provide an important opportunity to investigate the safety and tolerability of favipiravir, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of this drug and mechanisms of resistance in the context of COVID-19 infection, as well as the effect of favipiravir on hospitalisation duration and the post COVID-19 health and psycho-social wellbeing of patients recruited to the study. TRIAL DESIGN: GETAFIX is an open label, parallel group, two arm phase II/III randomised trial with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. Patients will be randomised to one of two arms and the primary endpoint will assess the superiority of favipiravir plus standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone. PARTICIPANTS: This trial will recruit adult patients with confirmed positive valid COVID-19 test, who are not pregnant or breastfeeding and have no prior major co-morbidities. This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Patients must meet all of the following criteria: 1. Age 16 or over at time of consent 2. Exhibiting symptoms associated with COVID-19 3. Positive for SARS-CoV-2 on valid COVID-19 test 4. Point 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity scale at time of randomisation. (Asymptomatic with positive valid COVID-19 test, Symptomatic Independent, Symptomatic assistance needed, Hospitalized, with no oxygen therapy) 5. Have >=10% risk of death should they be admitted to hospital as defined by the ISARIC4C risk index: https://isaric4c.net/risk 6. Able to provide written informed consent 7. Negative pregnancy test (women of childbearing potential*) 8. Able to swallow oral medication Patients will be excluded from the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Renal impairment requiring, or likely to require, dialysis or haemofiltration 2. Pregnant or breastfeeding 3. Of child bearing potential (women), or with female partners of child bearing potential (men) who do not agree to use adequate contraceptive measures for the duration of the study and for 3 months after the completion of study treatment 4. History of hereditary xanthinuria 5. Other patients judged unsuitable by the Principal Investigator or sub-Investigator 6. Known hypersensitivity to favipiravir, its metabolites or any excipients 7. Severe co-morbidities including: patients with severe hepatic impairment, defined as: • greater than Child-Pugh grade A • AST or ALT > 5 x ULN • AST or ALT >3 x ULN and Total Bilirubin > 2xULN 8. More than 96 hours since first positive COVID-19 test sample was taken 9. Unable to discontinue contra-indicated concomitant medications This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Patients randomised to the experimental arm of GETAFIX will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician plus favipiravir. These patients will receive a loading dose of favipiravir on day 1 of 3600mg (1800mg 12 hours apart). On days 2-10, patients in the experimental arm will receive a maintenance dose of favipiravir of 800mg 12 hours apart (total of 18 doses). Patients randomised to the control arm of the GETAFIX trial will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome being assessed in the GETAFIX trial is the efficacy of favipiravir in addition to standard treatment in patients with COVID-19 in reducing the severity of disease compared to standard treatment alone. Disease severity will be assessed using WHO COVID 10 point ordinal severity scale at day 15 +/- 48 hours. All randomised participants will be followed up until death or 60 days post-randomisation (whichever is sooner). RANDOMISATION: Patients will be randomised 1:1 to the experimental versus control arm using computer generated random sequence allocation. A minimisation algorithm incorporating a random component will be used to allocate patients. The factors used in the minimisation will be: site, age (16-50/51-70/71+), history of hypertension or currently obsess (BMI>30 or obesity clinically evident; yes/no), 7 days duration of symptoms (yes/no/unknown), sex (male/female), WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity score at baseline (1/2or 3/4). BLINDING (MASKING): No blinding will be used in the GETAFIX trial. Both participants and those assessing outcomes will be aware of treatment allocation. NUMBERS TO BE RANDOMISED (SAMPLE SIZE): In total, 302 patients will be randomised to the GETAFIX trial: 151 to the control arm and 151 to the experimental arm. There will be an optional consent form for patients who may want to contribute to more frequent PK and PD sampling. The maximum number of patients who will undergo this testing will be sixteen, eight males and eight females. This option will be offered to all patients who are being treated in hospital at the time of taking informed consent, however only patients in the experimental arm of the trial will be able to undergo this testing. TRIAL STATUS: The current GETAFIX protocol is version 4.0 12th September 2020. GETAFIX opened to recruitment on 26th October 2020 and will recruit patients over a period of approximately six months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: GETAFIX was registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database on 15th April 2020; Reference number 2020-001904-41 ( https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001904-41/GB ). GETAFIX was registered on ISRCTN on 7th September 2020; Reference number ISRCTN31062548 ( https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN31062548 ). FULL PROTOCOL: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (see Additional file 2).

Objectives: The GETAFIX trial will test the hypothesis that favipiravir is a more effective treatment for COVID-19 infection in patients who have early stage disease, compared to current standard of care. This study will also provide an important opportunity to investigate the safety and tolerability of favipiravir, the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of this drug and mechanisms of resistance in the context of COVID-19 infection, as well as the effect of favipiravir on hospitalisation duration and the post COVID-19 health and psycho-social wellbeing of patients recruited to the study. Trial design: GETAFIX is an open label, parallel group, two arm phase II/III randomised trial with 1:1 treatment allocation ratio. Patients will be randomised to one of two arms and the primary endpoint will assess the superiority of favipiravir plus standard treatment compared to standard treatment alone. Participants: This trial will recruit adult patients with confirmed positive valid COVID-19 test, who are not pregnant or breastfeeding and have no prior major co-morbidities. This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Patients must meet all of the following criteria: 1. Age 16 or over at time of consent 2. Exhibiting symptoms associated with COVID-19 3. Positive for SARS-CoV-2 on valid COVID-19 test 4. Point 1, 2, 3, or 4 on the WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity scale at time of randomisation. (Asymptomatic with positive valid COVID-19 test, Symptomatic Independent, Symptomatic assistance needed, Hospitalized, with no oxygen therapy) 5. Have >=10% risk of death should they be admitted to hospital as defined by the ISARIC4C risk index: https://isaric4c.net/risk 6. Able to provide written informed consent 7. Negative pregnancy test (women of childbearing potential*) 8. Able to swallow oral medication Patients will be excluded from the trial if they meet any of the following criteria: 1. Renal impairment requiring, or likely to require, dialysis or haemofiltration 2. Pregnant or breastfeeding 3. Of child bearing potential (women), or with female partners of child bearing potential (men) who do not agree to use adequate contraceptive measures for the duration of the study and for 3 months after the completion of study treatment 4. History of hereditary xanthinuria 5. Other patients judged unsuitable by the Principal Investigator or sub-Investigator 6. Known hypersensitivity to favipiravir, its metabolites or any excipients 7. Severe co-morbidities including: patients with severe hepatic impairment, defined as: • greater than Child-Pugh grade A • AST or ALT > 5 x ULN • AST or ALT >3 x ULN and Total Bilirubin > 2xULN 8. More than 96 hours since first positive COVID-19 test sample was taken 9. Unable to discontinue contra-indicated concomitant medications This is a multi-centre trial, patients will be recruited from in-patients and outpatients from three Glasgow hospitals: Royal Alexandra Hospital; Queen Elizabeth University Hospital; and the Glasgow Royal Infirmary. Intervention and comparator: Patients randomised to the experimental arm of GETAFIX will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician plus favipiravir. These patients will receive a loading dose of favipiravir on day 1 of 3600mg (1800mg 12 hours apart). On days 2-10, patients in the experimental arm will receive a maintenance dose of favipiravir of 800mg 12 hours apart (total of 18 doses). Patients randomised to the control arm of the GETAFIX trial will receive standard treatment for COVID-19 at the discretion of the treating clinician. Main outcomes: The primary outcome being assessed in the GETAFIX trial is the efficacy of favipiravir in addition to standard treatment in patients with COVID-19 in reducing the severity of disease compared to standard treatment alone. Disease severity will be assessed using WHO COVID 10 point ordinal severity scale at day 15 +/- 48 hours. All randomised participants will be followed up until death or 60 days post-randomisation (whichever is sooner). Randomisation: Patients will be randomised 1:1 to the experimental versus control arm using computer generated random sequence allocation. A minimisation algorithm incorporating a random component will be used to allocate patients. The factors used in the minimisation will be: site, age (16-50/51-70/71+), history of hypertension or currently obsess (BMI>30 or obesity clinically evident; yes/no), 7 days duration of symptoms (yes/no/unknown), sex (male/female), WHO COVID-19 ordinal severity score at baseline (1/2or 3/4). Blinding (masking): No blinding will be used in the GETAFIX trial. Both participants and those assessing outcomes will be aware of treatment allocation. Numbers to be randomised (sample size): In total, 302 patients will be randomised to the GETAFIX trial: 151 to the control arm and 151 to the experimental arm. There will be an optional consent form for patients who may want to contribute to more frequent PK and PD sampling. The maximum number of patients who will undergo this testing will be sixteen, eight males and eight females. This option will be offered to all patients who are being treated in hospital at the time of taking informed consent, however only patients in the experimental arm of the trial will be able to undergo this testing. Trial Status: The current GETAFIX protocol is version 4.0 12th September 2020. GETAFIX opened to recruitment on 26th October 2020 and will recruit patients over a period of approximately six months. Trial registration: GETAFIX was registered on the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database on 15th April 2020; Reference number 2020-001904-41 (https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2020-001904-41/GB). GETAFIX was registered on ISRCTN on 7th September 2020; Reference number ISRCTN31062548 (https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN31062548). Full protocol: The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (see Additional file 2).

The Precision Medicine and the Future of Cancer project was jointly conceived by the Innovation School at Glasgow School of Art and the Institute of Cancer Sciences at the University of Glasgow. Graduating year Product Design students from the Innovation School were presented with a challenge-based project to produce a vision of the future based on current trends that relate to Precision Medicine(PM) and Cancer treatment. This project involved working closely with scientists, clinicians, patients, industry and academic professionals from Glasgow University, staff at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital and Clinical Innovation Zone, staff at Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, Patient Representatives and external design experts from Studio AndThen and GOODD design consultancy. The objective of this project was to investigate, in both analytical and speculative ways, future forms and functions of cancer treatment and care in relation to Precision Medicine, to develop future scenarios and design artefacts, services, and the experiences associated with them. One of the most significant societal shifts currently taking place within the field of PM is the transformation around what it means to be a patient and a professional working within this context. The public's role is developing beyond once-passive patients into stakeholders valued within the medical industry and healthcare sector for their participation in clinical trials, and contribution towards policy-making and decision-making committees. This new dynamic is changing the traditional patient-doctor relationship and challenging the hegemony of medical practice at an institutional level. The impetus for this shift is relentless technological acceleration and increased scientific research, in particular driven by advances in PM. This project asked students to consider what will happen in a cancer landscape ten years from now, where PM has evolved to the extent that new forms of medical practice, cancer treatment and care transform how we interact with each other, with professionals and the world around us. The brief gave students the opportunity to reflect on the underlying complexities regarding the future of health, technological acceleration, post-capitalism and human agency, to envision a future world context, develop it as an experiential exhibit, and produce the designed products, services and experiences for the people who might live and work within it. The project was divided into two sections: The first was a collaborative stage where groups of students were assigned a specific area of focus from Social, Technological, Economic, Ethical, Educational, Political, Legal, Ecological [STEEEPLE]. These groups focused on researching and exploring their specific lenses and gathering as much information and understanding while working with external experts to further their knowledge. This group stage culminated in an exhibition of the collaborative understanding of what the future could look like in 10 years from now, after exploring the possible consequences of current actions. The second stage saw students explore their individual response to the world that had been defined in the first stage. Each student had their own response to the research by iteratively creating a design outcome that was appropriate to the subject matter. This culminated in each student having created a design product/service/experience relating to the future scenario. A full report (Project Process Journal [PPJ]) is included within the repository of each student which breaks down their process of designing and the outcome they have designed. The project aims to tackle the emerging possibilities where medical professionals and design can collaborate, to create a future where forms of medical practice are more preventative and are more appropriate for an aging population now and into the future. The deposited materials are arranged as follows: Readme files - two readme files relate to stage one and stage two of the project as outlined above. Overview poster - gives a visual overview of the structure and timeline of the project. Data folders - the data folders for stage one of the project are named for the lens through which each group viewed possible futures. The data folders for stage two of the project are named for the individual students who conducted the work.

The Future of Cancer and Collective Intelligence in the Post-Covid World project was jointly conceived by the Innovation School at Glasgow School of Art and the Institute of Cancer Sciences at the University of Glasgow. Graduating year Product Design students from the Innovation School were presented with a challenge-based project to produce a vision of the future based on current trends that relate to the Future of Cancer and Collective Intelligence in the Post-Covid World. Currently, cancer research and development occur in isolated pockets within stages across the cancer care continuum, which often negatively impacts on the potential for cancer professionals to exchange, integrate and share data, insights and knowledge across the framework. One of the most significant societal shifts currently taking place within Cancer and Collective Intelligence is the transformation from the siloed clinic point of care model to a seamless continuum of care with greater focus on prevention and early intervention, changing what it means to be someone living with cancer and a professional working within this context. From this new dynamic, emerges the concept of living-labs; transdisciplinary communities of practice involving people working within and living with cancer, capable, through collective intelligence-enabled systems and services, of generating knowledge which can be used locally, and shared globally, to deliver focused innovations across the whole cancer ecosystem. If collective intelligence holds the potential to truly connect people to people, and people to data, across diverse communities, linking peoples' lived experiences locally and globally, what kinds of new health and care services might emerge to improve cancer control across the continuum from prevention, detection, treatment and survivorship, and what types of new roles might emerge for citizens, patients and community groups to collaboratively drive these forward with health professionals? In order to address this challenge, the GSA Innovation School's final year Product Design students and faculty formed a dynamic community of practice with cancer practitioners and researchers from the Institute of Cancer Sciences at The University of Glasgow and beyond to envisage a 2030 cancer blueprint as a series of future world exhibits, and create the designed products, services and experiences for the people who might live and work within this ecosystem. This project involved the students working in partnership with an Expert Faculty composed of Cancer Physicians, Cancer Researchers, Social Scientists, Biomedical Engineers, Health Research Specialists, Past Patients, Digital Health Specialists, Design Experts and Government Agencies. The Expert Faculty was assembled from a range of local to global organisations including the University of Glasgow, the Beatson West of Scotland Cancer Centre, the Malawi Ministry of Health and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC is part of the World Health Organization). This project asked the students to embark on a speculative design exploration into future experiences of working and living with cancer ten years from now, where advances in collective intelligence have evolved to the extent that new forms and ecosystems of medical practice, cancer care and experiences of living with, through and beyond cancer transform how we interact with each other, with health professionals and the communities around us. This project was conceived and carried out during the global COVID-19 pandemic. Throughout the project the students positively used this situation to creatively embrace a digital studio practice and innovate around digital and remote access platforms and forums for collaboration, development and engagement. Thus, the designed products, services and experiences for the people who might live and work within the cancer ecosystem are presented as innovative, highly creative, fully immersive, experiential exhibits. The project was divided into two sections: The first was a collaborative stage based on Future Worlds. The worlds are groups of students working together on specific topics, to establish the context for their project and collaborate on research and development. These were clustered together around 'Future Working' and 'Future Living' but also joined up across these groups to create pairs of worlds, and in the process generate collective intelligence between the groups. The worlds clustered around 'Future Working' are Education, Care and Treatment, Prevention and Detection. Future Worlds clustered around 'Future Living' are Personal Wellbeing, Communicating Cancer, Beyond Cancer. The second stage saw students explore their individual response to their assigned Future World that had been created in the first stage. Each student developed their own research by iteratively creating a design outcome that was appropriate to the Future cancer World. This culminated in each student producing designed products, services or systems and a communication of the future experiences created. Throughout the project, the results were presented as a series live interactive digitally curated, virtual work-in-progress exhibitions for specific audiences including a special global event to participate in World Cancer Day on the 4th February 2021. An event which allowed the students to actively interact and discuss the project with a global audience of cancer community leaders. The deposited materials are arranged as follows: 1. Readme files - two readme files relate to tage one and stage two of the project as outlined above. 2. Project overview document - gives a visual overview of the structure and timeline of the project. 3. Stage one data folders - the data folders for stage one of the project are named by the six Future Worlds through which each group explored possible futures. 4. Stage two data folders - the data folders for stage two of the project are named for the individual students who conducted the work and organised by the Future World cluster they worked within.