Prognostic factors for patients with anal cancer treated with conformal radiotherapy-a systematic review.

AIMS: Anal cancer is primarily treated using concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CRT), with conformal techniques such as intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) and volumetric arc therapy (VMAT) now being the standard techniques utilised across the world. Despite this, there is still very limited consensus on prognostic factors for outcome following conformal CRT. This systematic review aims to evaluate the existing literature to identify prognostic factors for a variety of oncological outcomes in anal cancer, focusing on patients treated with curative intent using contemporary conformal radiotherapy techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search was conducted using Medline and Embase to identify studies reporting on prognostic factors for survival and cancer-related outcomes after conformal CRT for anal cancer. The prognostic factors which were identified as significant in univariable and multivariable analysis, along with their respective factor effects (where available) were extracted. Only factors reported as prognostic in more than one study were included in the final results. RESULTS: The results from 19 studies were analysed. In both univariable and multivariable analysis, N stage, T stage, and sex were found to be the most prevalent and reliable clinical prognostic factors for the majority of outcomes explored. Only a few biomarkers have been identified as prognostic by more than one study - pre-treatment biopsy HPV load, as well as the presence of leukocytosis, neutrophilia and anaemia at baseline measurement. The results also highlight the lack of studies with large cohorts exploring the prognostic significance of imaging factors. CONCLUSION: Establishing a set of prognostic and potentially predictive factors for anal cancer outcomes can guide the risk stratification of patients, aiding the design of future clinical trials. Such trials will in turn provide us with greater insight into how to effectively treat this disease using a more personalised approach.

Combined PET-CT and MRI for response evaluation in patients with squamous cell anal carcinoma treated with curative-intent chemoradiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for response assessment post curative-intent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC). METHODS: Consecutive ASCC patients treated with curative-intent CRT at a single centre between January 2018 and April 2020 were retrospectively identified. Clinical meta-data including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were collated. Three radiologists evaluated PET-CT and MRI using qualitative response assessment criteria and agreed in consensus. Two-proportion z test was used to compare diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy). Kaplan-Meier analysis (Mantel-Cox log-rank) was performed. RESULTS: MRI (accuracy 76%, PPV 44.8%, NPV 95.7%) and PET-CT (accuracy 69.3%, PPV 36.7%, NPV 91.1%) performance metrics were similar; when combined, there were statistically significant improvements (accuracy 94.7%, PPV 78.9%, NPV 100%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in PFS between responders and non-responders at PET-CT (p = 0.007), MRI (p = 0.005), and consensus evaluation (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis of PFS demonstrated a lower hazard ratio (HR) and narrower 95% confidence intervals for consensus findings (HR = 0.093, p < 0.001). Seventy-five patients, of which 52 (69.3%) were females, with median follow-up of 17.8 months (range 5-32.6) were included. Fifteen of the 75 (20%) had persistent anorectal and/or nodal disease after CRT. Three patients died, median time to death 6.2 months (range 5-18.3). CONCLUSION: Combined PET-CT and MRI response assessment post-CRT better predicts subsequent outcome than either modality alone. This could have valuable clinical benefits by guiding personalised risk-adapted patient follow-up. KEY POINTS: • MRI and PET-CT performance metrics for assessing response following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) were similar. • Combined MRI and PET-CT treatment response assessment 3 months after CRT in patients with ASCC was demonstrated to be superior to either modality alone. • A combined MRI and PET-CT assessment 3 months after CRT in patients with ASCC has the potential to improve accuracy and guide optimal patient management with a greater ability to predict outcome than either modality alone.

The benefit of MR-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers: A planning study.

INTRODUCTION: Limited evidence exists showing the benefit of magnetic resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers. This study aims to assess the impact of MR-only planning on target volumes (TVs) and treatment plan doses to organs at risks (OARs) for anal and rectal cancers versus a computed tomography (CT)-only pathway. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-six patients (29 rectum and 17 anus) undergoing preoperative or radical external beam radiotherapy received CT and T2 MR simulation. TV and OARs were delineated on CT and MR, and volumetric arc therapy treatment plans were optimized independently (53.2 Gy/28 fractions for anus, 45 Gy/25 fractions for rectum). Further treatment plans assessed gross tumor volume (GTV) dose escalation. Differences in TV volumes and OAR doses, in terms of Vx Gy (organ volume (%) receiving x dose (Gy)), were assessed. RESULTS: MR GTV and primary planning TV (PTV) volumes systematically reduced by 13 cc and 98 cc (anus) and 44 cc and 109 cc (rectum) respectively compared to CT volumes. Statistically significant OAR dose reductions versus CT were found for bladder and uterus (rectum) and bladder, penile bulb, and genitalia (anus). With GTV boosting, statistically significant dose reductions were found for sigmoid, small bowel, vagina, and penile bulb (rectum) and vagina (anus). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of MR (whether through MR-only or CT-MR pathways) to radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers has the potential to improve treatments. MR-related OAR dose reductions may translate into less treatment-related toxicity for patients or greater ability to dose escalate.

eHealth and mHealth interventions in pediatric cancer: A systematic review of interventions across the cancer continuum.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to (a) identify current published research in electronic health (eHealth) and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for youth undergoing cancer treatment and child, adolescent, and young adult survivors of childhood cancer and (b) critically appraise the current scientific evidence on their effectiveness and efficacy. As an exploratory aim, we identified pediatric cancer patients' and survivors' perceptions, attitudes, and concerns related to eHealth and mHealth interventions. METHODS: A comprehensive search of the literature was performed to identify peer-reviewed journal articles that included the use of mHealth and eHealth interventions among youth receiving active cancer treatment and survivors of childhood cancer through the age range of childhood to young adulthood (mean age 21 years or younger at the time of diagnosis; mean age 39 years or younger at the time of intervention). The search was conducted via six electronic databases: PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, IEEEXplore and the Cochrane Library. RESULTS: Of the 1879 potential records examined, 21 met criteria for inclusion for a total of 1506 participants. Of the investigations included, 13 were randomized controlled trials, and eight were nonrandomized studies. Findings demonstrated feasibility as well as acceptability with these approaches. Evidence of efficacy for interventions targeting emotional distress, health behaviors, health outcomes, and neurocognitive functioning was mixed. CONCLUSIONS: Given the growing evidence of efficacy, coupled with increasing access to digital technologies, eHealth and mHealth may serve an important role in improving mental and physical health outcomes of youth undergoing cancer treatment and child, adolescent, and young adult survivors of childhood cancer.

Choice of a patient-reported outcome measure for patients with anal cancer for use in cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice: a mixed methods approach.

BACKGROUND: In the USA, more than 7200 new cases of anal cancer were diagnosed in 2014 with incidence rising. Concurrent chemoradiotherapy improves cancer-related outcomes but has led to an increase in acute and late adverse events. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) are increasingly included in trials as a surrogate measure for reporting of late adverse events. This study aimed to select the most effective PRO to use in clinical research and practice for anal cancer since no questionnaire specific for anal cancer has been developed. METHODS: A mixed methods approached was used. A systematic review estimated the frequency of use of PROs and clinician reporting instruments used in anal cancer trials including radiation treatment. Health professional semi-structured interviews explored preferred questionnaires and revealed missing items; analysis was done using the framework approach. Two symptom-based, validated questionnaires were selected and assessed by means of inductive content analysis to highlight discrepancies relevant to anal cancer. FINDINGS: 34 relevant studies reported on radiotherapy adverse events. For PROs, EORTC QLQ-C30 (n=5) and EORTC QLQ-CR38 (n=3) were used most frequently. RTOG/EORTC (n=17) and CTCAE (n=15) criteria were most commonly used for clinician reporting. EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-CR38, and National Cancer Institute's (NCI) PRO-CTCAE were selected for further analysis. No consensus for questionnaire content or design was found through health professional interviews (n=8). Domains and codes relevant to anal cancer treatment were selected from interviews to inform questionnaire analysis. 27 domains and 60 codes were found in EORTC questionnaires, and 21 domains and 44 codes in NCI PRO-CTCAE. Four domains and 16 codes were not covered by EORTC systems including radiation skin reaction. Six domains and 45 codes were not covered by NCI PRO-CTCAE including vaginal stenosis and bowel urgency. INTERPRETATION: This study shows that there are gaps in the questionnaires commonly used to record adverse events using PROs for anal cancer. Expert opinion is valuable in highlighting relevant missing items but provides no consensus on design and wording preferences. For use in longitudinal follow-up of patients with anal cancer treated with (chemo)radiation, the EORTC-QLQ system has the fewest missing symptom items for use as a validated PRO in clinical research and practice. FUNDING: This abstract presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Use of patient-reported outcomes to measure symptoms and health related quality of life in the clinic.

There is increasing interest in the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in routine practice in cancer care to measure symptoms and health related quality of life (HRQOL). PROs are designed to capture the patient's perspective of their care and treatment, and complement the traditional clinical outcomes of survival and toxicity assessment. Integrating routine collection and feedback of PROs has been found to improve care for patients on both an individual level, through improved communication and management of symptoms, and at an organizational level, by enabling aggregation of data to compare performance. This article reviews the benefits and challenges of introducing patient-reported assessments into routine clinical practice. Methods for choosing a questionnaire; collection and presentation of results; timing and frequency of administration as well as clinician training methods to aid the ability of clinicians to integrate the use of PROs into their own practice are described. Electronic PRO capture and integration with electronic health records seems to provide the most effective method for seamless integration into existing patient care pathways. Case studies from our own practice illustrate the issues raised. Electronic methods enabling immediate collection, scoring and interpretation of the data, as well as real-time data capture, email alert systems and individualized, online self-management advice may enable severe symptoms to be managed in a more timely manner. Evaluation methods are described to establish the effectiveness of the PRO intervention. Engaging stakeholders throughout the process of initial consultation and development, during delivery and evaluation is key to success. Future work needs to focus on the effectiveness of PROs in longer-term follow-up of patients in routine care and the relationship between the PRO severity grading and clinician severity grading using the Common Terminology Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE).

Systematic review of the quality of life issues associated with anal cancer and its treatment with radiochemotherapy.

PURPOSE: Radiochemotherapy is the standard of care for the treatment of anal carcinoma achieving good loco-regional control and sphincter preservation. This approach is however associated with acute and late toxicities including haematological, skin, bowel function and genito-urinary complications. This paper systematically reviews studies addressing the quality of life (QoL) implications of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy. The paper also evaluates how QoL is assessed in anal cancer. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications (1996-2014) reporting the effects on patients of anal cancer and radiochemotherapy. RESULTS: Of the 152 papers reporting treatment-related effects on patients, only 11 provided a formal assessment of QoL. In the absence of an anal cancer-specific measure, QoL was assessed using generic cancer instruments such as the core EORTC quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) or colorectal cancer tools such as the EORTC QLQ-CR29. Bowel function, particularly diarrhoea, and sexual problems were the most commonly reported QoL concerns. The review of QoL issues of anal cancer patients treated with radiochemotherapy is limited by the QoL assessment measures used. It is argued that certain treatment-related toxicities, for example skin-induced radiation problems, are overlooked or inadequately represented in existing measures. CONCLUSIONS: This review emphasises the need to develop an anal cancer-specific QoL measure and to incorporate QoL as an outcome of future trials in anal cancer. The results of this review are informative to clinicians and patients in terms of treatment decision-making.

The use of master protocols for efficient trial design to evaluate radiotherapy interventions: a systematic review.

The aim of this review was to highlight why the use of master protocols trial design is particularly useful for radiotherapy intervention trials where complex-set up pathways (including quality assurance, user training, integrating multiple modalities of treatment) may hinder clinical advances. We carried out a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines, reviewing the findings using a landscape analysis. Results were summarised descriptively, reporting on trial characteristics highlighting the benefits, limitations, and challenges of developing and implementing radiotherapy master protocols with three case studies selected to explore these issues in more detail. 12 studies were suitable for inclusion (4 platform trials, 3 umbrella trials, and 5 basket trials), evaluating a mix of solid tumour sites in both curative and palliative settings. The interventions were categorised into 1. Novel agent and radiotherapy combinations; 2. Radiotherapy dose personalisation; and 3. Device evaluation, with a case study provided for each intervention. Benefits of master protocol trials for radiotherapy intervention include: protocol efficiency for implementation of novel radiotherapy techniques; accelerating the evaluation of novel agent drug and radiotherapy combinations; and more efficient translational research opportunities, leading to cost savings and research efficiency to improve patient outcomes. Master protocols offer an innovative platform under which multiple clinical questions can be addressed within a single trial. Due to the complexity of radiotherapy trial set up, cost and research efficiency savings may be more apparent than in systemic treatment trials. Use of this research approach may be the change needed to push forward oncological innovation within radiation oncology.

Cohort study investigating evolution and factors associated with dyspnoea after anatomic lung resection.

Background: Dyspnoea is common following surgical resection for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The effects range from reduced quality of life to impact on adjuvant therapy outcomes. Currently, dyspnoea beyond the immediate postoperative phase and risk factors are not well characterised. We hope to assess the evolution of patient-reported dyspnoea after anatomic lung resection and associated factors. Methods: Single-centre cohort study with analysis on data collected longitudinally of 131 patients undergoing anatomic lung resections for NSCLC between September 2014 and December 2018. The European Organization for Research and Treatment Lung Cancer-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire Dyspnoea Scale was used to measure dyspnoea before and after surgery. Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with clinically meaningful perioperative changes in dyspnoea at 6-12 months. Results: Mean Dyspnoea Scale scores preoperatively and 6-12 months after resection were 12.6 (standard deviation 17.4) and 17.9 (standard deviation 20.5), respectively. Of all patients 31% experienced a clinically meaningful increase in dyspnoea, defined as >10 points between Dyspnoea Scale scores preoperatively and at 6-12 months. Comparatively, 71% of patients without preoperative symptoms of dyspnoea developed a clinically meaningful increase of dyspnoea postoperatively. After adjusting the analysis for baseline factors and preoperative Dyspnoea Scale score, female sex remained the only patient factor associated with increased postoperative dyspnoea at 6-12 months after surgery (P=0.046). A total of 34% of patients reported increased dyspnoea after lobectomies and 9% after segmentectomies (P=0.014). Segmentectomy (as opposed to larger resections) was the only surgical factor associated with lower risk of increased dyspnoea (P=0.057). Conclusions: A clinically meaningful increase in dyspnoea is frequent after lung resection. Postoperative evolution of dyspnoea is non-predictable using objective baseline factors highlighting the importance of patient reported symptoms and involvement in clinical consultation.

Agreement between youth and caregiver report of pain and functioning in pediatric sickle cell disease: PedsQL sickle cell disease module.

ABSTRACT: Pain is a primary symptom of sickle cell disease (SCD) and is often severe and chronic. To treat SCD-related pain, proper assessment of SCD pain among youth, including the degree of concordance or agreement between youth and caregiver reports of pain, is essential but has not yet been adequately evaluated. In this study, 525 youth with SCD and their parents were evaluated as part of the Sickle Cell Clinical Research and Intervention Program (SCCRIP) to examine pain rating concordance and predictors of concordance. Youth and parents completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory Sickle Cell Disease module (PedsQL-SCD) to measure pain, pain interference, and pain-related constructs. Disease, clinical, and demographic variables were obtained from the SCCRIP database. Intraclass correlations demonstrated moderate-to-poor consistency between youth and caregiver reports of pain and pain interference (ICCs range from 0.17 to 0.54). Analysis of covariance and regression models found that patient age, frequency of hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, economic hardship, and fetal hemoglobin levels were significantly associated with varying pain-rating agreement levels among parent proxy and child self-report pain. Concordance of pain assessments among youth with SCD and their caregivers using the PedsQL-SCD Module was moderate at best, corroborating prior research. Youth factors predicting discordance among pain-related factors included increased ED visits, older age, and female sex. Collectively, these results bolster the use of integrated pain assessments to reduce parent-child discrepancies, thereby improving the adequacy of SCD-related pain assessment and treatment.

Collaborating with cancer patients and informal caregivers in a European study on quality of life: protocol to embed patient and public involvement within the EUonQoL project.

BACKGROUND: Patient and public involvement (PPI) has become an essential part of health research. There is a need for genuine involvement in order to ensure that research is relevant to patients. This can then improve the quality, relevance, and impact of health research, while at the same time reducing wasted research and in doing so bringing science and society closer together. Despite the increasing attention for this involvement, it is not yet common practice to report on proposed activities. An article reporting planned PPI could provide guidance and inspiration for the wider academic community in future activities. Therefore, this current article aims to describe the way in which PPI principles are incorporated in the research project called "Quality of Life in Oncology: measuring what matters for cancer patients and survivors in Europe (EUonQoL)." This project aims to develop a new set of questionnaires to enable cancer patients to assess their quality of life, entitled the EUonQoL-Kit. METHODS: The first step is to recruit cancer patients and their informal caregivers as co-researchers in order to train them to collaborate with the researchers. Based on their skills and preferences, they are then assigned to several of the project's work packages. Their individual roles, tasks, and responsibilities regarding the work packages, to which they have been assigned, are evaluated and adapted when necessary. The impact of their involvement is evaluated by both the researchers and co-researchers. DISCUSSION: PPI is a complex and dynamic process. As such, the overall structure of the research may be defined while at the same time leaving room for certain aspects to be filled in later. Our research is, we believe, relevant as co-researcher involvement in such a large European project as EUonQoL is a new development.

Toxicity Prediction in Pelvic Radiotherapy Using Multiple Instance Learning and Cascaded Attention Layers.

Modern radiotherapy delivers treatment plans optimised on an individual patient level, using CT-based 3D models of patient anatomy. This optimisation is fundamentally based on simple assumptions about the relationship between radiation dose delivered to the cancer (increased dose will increase cancer control) and normal tissue (increased dose will increase rate of side effects). The details of these relationships are still not well understood, especially for radiation-induced toxicity. We propose a convolutional neural network based on multiple instance learning to analyse toxicity relationships for patients receiving pelvic radiotherapy. A dataset comprising of 315 patients were included in this study; with 3D dose distributions, pre-treatment CT scans with annotated abdominal structures, and patient-reported toxicity scores provided for each participant. In addition, we propose a novel mechanism for segregating the attentions over space and dose/imaging features independently for a better understanding of the anatomical distribution of toxicity. Quantitative and qualitative experiments were performed to evaluate the network performance. The proposed network could predict toxicity with 80% accuracy. Attention analysis over space demonstrated that there was a significant association between radiation dose to the anterior and right iliac of the abdomen and patient-reported toxicity. Experimental results showed that the proposed network had outstanding performance for toxicity prediction, localisation and explanation with the ability of generalisation for an unseen dataset.

Online Symptom Monitoring During Pelvic Radiation Therapy: Randomized Pilot Trial of the eRAPID Intervention.

PURPOSE: Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D). RESULTS: From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

International Validation of the EORTC QLQ-ANL27, a Field Study to Test the Anal Cancer-Specific Health-Related Quality-of-Life Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) health-related quality of life questionnaire for anal cancer (QLQ-ANL27) supplements the EORTC cancer generic measure (QLQ-C30) to measure concerns specific to people with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. This study tested the psychometric properties and acceptability of the QLQ-ANL27. METHODS AND MATERIALS: People with anal cancer were recruited from 15 countries to complete the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ANL27 and provide feedback on the QLQ-ANL27. Item responses, scale structure (multitrait scaling, factor analysis), reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) and sensitivity (known group comparisons and responsiveness to change) of the QLQ-ANL27 were evaluated. RESULTS: Data from 382 people were included in the analyses. The EORTC QLQ-ANL27 was acceptable, comprehensive, and easy to complete, taking an average 8 minutes to complete. Psychometric analyses supported the EORTC QLQ-ANL27 items and reliability (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.71-0.93 and test-retest coefficients above 0.7) and validity of the scales (particularly nonstoma bowel symptoms and pain/discomfort). Most scales distinguished people according to treatment phase and performance status. Bowel (nonstoma), pain/discomfort, and vaginal symptoms were sensitive to deteriorations over time. The stoma-related scales remained untested because of low numbers of people with a stoma. Revisions to the scoring and question ordering of the sexual items were proposed. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-ANL27 has good psychometric properties and is available in 16 languages for people treated with chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. It is used in clinical trials and has a potential role in clinical practice.

Linking the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Item Library to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events.

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Item Library is an interactive online platform currently composed of 950 unique items (questions) derived from 67 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. PROs complement clinician adverse event (AE) reporting classifications like the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). This work aims to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from the EORTC Item Library through linking individual items to corresponding AEs. METHODS: The EORTC Item Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described within the AE's title, description, or grading. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms. Other nonsymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification. Further descriptive codes (eg, multiple issues) were allocated to enable descriptive analysis. Two raters independently coded 26.2% (n = 249) of the items. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, followed by discussion with two additional raters to reach consensus. RESULTS: Overall, 625 (65.8%) EORTC items were linked to 208 different AEs. Three hundred sixty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer-related issues and were categorized into seven descriptive classifications, including body image; emotional impact of a symptom, diagnosis, or treatment; global health and quality of life; and impact on life and daily activities. Inter-rater agreement for independent coding was 79.1%. Bowel urgency and tenesmus were identified as missing symptoms in CTCAEv5.0. CONCLUSION: The EORTC Item Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues important to patients with cancer. Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO items may facilitate PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials.

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

Quality-of-life outcomes in older patients with early-stage rectal cancer receiving organ-preserving treatment with hypofractionated short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TREC): non-randomised registry of patients unsuitable for total mesorectal excision.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with early-stage rectal cancer are under-represented in clinical trials and, therefore, little high-quality data are available to guide treatment in this patient population. The TREC trial was a randomised, open-label feasibility study conducted at 21 centres across the UK that compared organ preservation through short-course radiotherapy (SCRT; 25 Gy in five fractions) plus transanal endoscopic microsurgery (TEM) with standard total mesorectal excision in adults with stage T1-2 rectal adenocarcinoma (maximum diameter ≤30 mm) and no lymph node involvement or metastasis. TREC incorporated a non-randomised registry offering organ preservation to patients who were considered unsuitable for total mesorectal excision by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team. Organ preservation was achieved in 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised registry patients with local recurrence-free survival of 91% (95% CI 84-99) at 3 years. Here, we report acute and long-term patient-reported outcomes from this non-randomised registry group. METHODS: Patients considered by the local colorectal cancer multidisciplinary team to be at high risk of complications from total mesorectal excision on the basis of frailty, comorbidities, and older age were included in a non-randomised registry to receive organ-preserving treatment. These patients were invited to complete questionnaires on patient-reported outcomes (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life [EORTC-QLQ] questionnaire core module [QLQ-C30] and colorectal cancer module [QLQ-CR29], the Colorectal Functional Outcome [COREFO] questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 Dimensions-3 Level [EQ-5D-3L]) at baseline and at months 3, 6, 12, 24, and 36 postoperatively. To aid interpretation, data from patients in the non-randomised registry were compared with data from those patients in the TREC trial who had been randomly assigned to organ-preserving therapy, and an additional reference cohort of aged-matched controls from the UK general population. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN14422743, and is closed. FINDINGS: Between July 21, 2011, and July 15, 2015, 88 patients were enrolled onto the TREC study to undergo organ preservation, of whom 27 (31%) were randomly allocated to organ-preserving therapy and 61 (69%) were added to the non-randomised registry for organ-preserving therapy. Non-randomised patients were older than randomised patients (median age 74 years [IQR 67-80] vs 65 years [61-71]). Organ-preserving treatment was well tolerated among patients in the non-randomised registry, with mild worsening of fatigue; quality of life; physical, social, and role functioning; and bowel function 3 months postoperatively compared with baseline values. By 6-12 months, most scores had returned to baseline values, and were indistinguishable from data from the reference cohort. Only mild symptoms of faecal incontinence and urgency, equivalent to less than one episode per week, persisted at 36 months among patients in both groups. INTERPRETATION: The SCRT and TEM organ-preservation approach was well tolerated in older and frailer patients, showed good rates of organ preservation, and was associated with low rates of acute and long-term toxicity, with minimal effects on quality of life and functional status. Our findings support the adoption of this approach for patients considered to be at high risk from radical surgery. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer (APHRODITE): protocol for a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: The standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: APHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16158514.

Development and validation of prognostic models for anal cancer outcomes using distributed learning: protocol for the international multi-centre atomCAT2 study.

BACKGROUND: Anal cancer is a rare cancer with rising incidence. Despite the relatively good outcomes conferred by state-of-the-art chemoradiotherapy, further improving disease control and reducing toxicity has proven challenging. Developing and validating prognostic models using routinely collected data may provide new insights for treatment development and selection. However, due to the rarity of the cancer, it can be difficult to obtain sufficient data, especially from single centres, to develop and validate robust models. Moreover, multi-centre model development is hampered by ethical barriers and data protection regulations that often limit accessibility to patient data. Distributed (or federated) learning allows models to be developed using data from multiple centres without any individual-level patient data leaving the originating centre, therefore preserving patient data privacy. This work builds on the proof-of-concept three-centre atomCAT1 study and describes the protocol for the multi-centre atomCAT2 study, which aims to develop and validate robust prognostic models for three clinically important outcomes in anal cancer following chemoradiotherapy. METHODS: This is a retrospective multi-centre cohort study, investigating overall survival, locoregional control and freedom from distant metastasis after primary chemoradiotherapy for anal squamous cell carcinoma. Patient data will be extracted and organised at each participating radiotherapy centre (n = 18). Candidate prognostic factors have been identified through literature review and expert opinion. Summary statistics will be calculated and exchanged between centres prior to modelling. The primary analysis will involve developing and validating Cox proportional hazards models across centres for each outcome through distributed learning. Outcomes at specific timepoints of interest and factor effect estimates will be reported, allowing for outcome prediction for future patients. DISCUSSION: The atomCAT2 study will analyse one of the largest available cross-institutional cohorts of patients with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. The analysis aims to provide information on current international clinical practice outcomes and may aid the personalisation and design of future anal cancer clinical trials through contributing to a better understanding of patient risk stratification.

Patient position verification in magnetic-resonance imaging only radiotherapy of anal and rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment pathways require either the MR-simulation or synthetic-computed tomography (sCT) as an alternative reference image for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patient position verification. This study assessed whether using T2 MR or sCT as CBCT reference images introduces systematic registration errors as compared to CT for anal and rectal cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 32 patients (18 rectum,14 anus) received pre-treatment CT- and T2 MR- simulation. Routine treatment CBCTs were acquired. sCTs were generated using a validated research model. The local clinical registration protocol, using a grey-scale registration algorithm, was performed for 216 CBCTs using CT, MR and sCT as the reference image. Linear mixed effects modelling identified systematic differences between modalities. RESULTS: Systematic translation and rotation differences to CT for MR were -0.3 to + 0.3 mm and -0.1 to 0.4° for anal cancers and -0.4 to 0.0 mm and 0.0 to 0.1° for rectal cancers, and for sCT were -0.4 to + 0.8 mm, -0.1 to 0.2° for anal cancers and -0.6 to + 0.2 mm, -0.1 to + 0.1° for rectal cancers. CONCLUSIONS: T2 MR or sCT can successfully be used as reference images for anal and rectal cancer CBCT position verification with systematic differences to CT <±1 mm and <±0.5°. Clinical enabling of alternative modalities as reference images by vendors is required to reduce challenges associated with their use.