Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated advanced ovarian cancer: Results from the phase 2 multicohort LEAP-005 study.

OBJECTIVES: The phase 2, multicohort, open-label LEAP-005 study evaluated lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors. We report outcomes from the ovarian cancer cohort. METHODS: Eligible patients had metastatic/unresectable ovarian cancer and had received 3 previous lines of therapy. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg/day plus pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. Treatment continued until progression, unacceptable toxicity, or (for pembrolizumab) completion of 35 cycles. Primary endpoints were objective response rate (ORR) per RECIST version 1.1 and safety. Secondary endpoints included duration of response (DOR), progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Thirty-one patients were enrolled. 39% had high grade serous ovarian cancer, 23% were platinum-sensitive, 55% were platinum-resistant, 23% were platinum-refractory, and 84% had tumors that had a PD-L1 combined positive (CPS) score ≥1. ORR (95% CI) was 26% (12%-45%) by investigator assessment and 35% (19%-55%) by blinded independent central review (BICR). Per BICR, median DOR was 9.2 (1.5+ to 37.8+) months. ORRs (95% CI) by BICR were 35% (9/26 patients; 17%-56%) for PD-L1 CPS ≥ 1 disease and 50% (2/4 patients; 7%-93%) for PD-L1 CPS < 1 disease. Median (95% CI) PFS by BICR and OS were 6.2 (4.0-8.5) months and 21.3 (11.7-32.3) months, respectively. Treatment-related AEs occurred in 94% of patients (grade 3-4, 77%). One patient died from treatment-related hypovolemic shock. CONCLUSIONS: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated antitumor activity as fourth line therapy in patients with advanced ovarian cancer, and no unanticipated safety signals were identified. Responses were observed regardless of PD-L1 status.

NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma.

Background: There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. Methods: NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm. Results: A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events. Conclusions: Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

Management Paradigm of Central Nervous System Metastases in NSCLC: An Australian Perspective.

Life-prolonging central nervous system active systemic therapies for metastatic NSCLC have increased the complexity of managing brain metastases (BMs). Australian medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons discussed the evidence guiding the diverse clinical approaches to the management of BM in NSCLC. The Australian context is broadly applicable to other jurisdictions; therefore, we have documented these discussions as principles with broader applications. Patient management was stratified according to clinical and radiologic factors under two broad classifications of newly diagnosed BMs: symptomatic and asymptomatic. Other important considerations include the number and location of metastases, tumor histotypes, molecular subtype, and treatment purpose. Careful consideration of the pace and burden of symptoms, risk of worsening neurologic function at a short interval, and extracranial disease burden should determine whether central nervous system active systemic therapies are used alone or in combination with local therapies (surgery with or without radiation therapy). Most clinical trial evidence currently focuses on historical treatment options or a single treatment modality rather than the optimal sequencing of multiple modern therapies; therefore, an individualized approach is key in a rapidly changing therapeutic landscape.

Development and Validation of txSim: A Model of Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment in Australia.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Since 2016, new therapies have transformed the standard of care for lung cancer, creating a need for up-to-date evidence for health economic modelling. We developed a discrete event simulation of advanced lung cancer treatment to provide estimates of survival outcomes and healthcare costs in the Australian setting that can be updated as new therapies are introduced. METHODS: Treatment for advanced lung cancer was modelled under a clinician-specified treatment algorithm for Australia in 2022. Prevalence of lung cancer subpopulations was extracted from cBioPortal and the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study, a large prospective cohort linked to cancer registrations. All costs were from the health system perspective for the year 2020. Pharmaceutical and molecular diagnostic costs were obtained from public reimbursement fees, while other healthcare costs were obtained from health system costs in the 45 and Up Study. Treatment efficacy was obtained from clinical trials and observational study data. Costs and survival were modelled over a 10-year horizon. Uncertainty intervals were generated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Overall survival predictions were validated against real-world studies. RESULTS: Under the 2022 treatment algorithm, estimated mean survival and costs for advanced lung cancer 10 years post-diagnosis were 16.4 months (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 14.7-18.1) and AU$116,069 (95% UI: $107,378-$124,933). Survival and costs were higher assuming optimal treatment utilisation rates (20.5 months, 95% UI: 19.1-22.5; $154,299, 95% UI: $146,499-$161,591). The model performed well in validation, with good agreement between predicted and observed survival in real-world studies. CONCLUSIONS: Survival improvements for advanced lung cancer have been accompanied by growing treatment costs. The estimates reported here can be used for budget planning and economic evaluations of interventions across the spectrum of cancer control.

Hope in the era of precision oncology: a qualitative study of informal caregivers' experiences.

OBJECTIVES: To explore informal caregivers' perspectives on precision medicine in cancer care. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with the informal caregivers of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a framework approach. SETTING: Recruitment was facilitated by two hospitals and five Australian cancer community groups. PARTICIPANTS: Informal caregivers (n=28; 16 men, 12 women; aged 18-80) of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies. RESULTS: Thematic analysis identified three findings, centred largely on the pervasive theme of hope in relation to precision therapies including: (1) precision as a key component of caregivers' hope; (2) hope as a collective practice between patients, caregivers, clinicians and others, which entailed work and obligation for caregivers; and (3) hope as linked to expectations of further scientific progress, even if there may be no personal, immediate benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Innovation and change in precision oncology are rapidly reconfiguring the parameters of hope for patients and caregivers, creating new and difficult relational moments and experiences in everyday life and in clinical encounters. In the context of a shifting therapeutic landscape, caregivers' experiences illustrate the need to understand hope as collectively produced, as emotional and moral labour, and as entangled in broader cultural expectations of medical advances. Such understandings may help clinicians as they guide patients and caregivers through the complexities of diagnosis, treatment, emerging evidence and possible futures in the precision era. Developing a better understanding of informal caregivers' experiences of caring for patients receiving precision therapies is important for improving support to patients and their caregivers.

Clinical Trials in the Brain Tumour Population: Challenges and Strategies for the Future.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review identifies challenges and barriers to successful development of drugs in neuro-oncology trials at the preclinical, clinical and translational stages that we believe has contributed to poor outcomes for patients over the last 30 years. RECENT FINDINGS: Several key strategies have been proposed by leading groups to address these and improve patient outcomes. Better preclinical testing using more sophisticated and clinically relevant models is needed. A greater focus on assessing blood-brain barrier penetrance and targeting key biological processes such as tumour heterogeneity and immune response is vital. Adopting innovative trial designs permitting faster results and addressing key issues (including molecular heterogeneity and combinatorial approaches) is highly desirable. A stronger translational focus is also clearly needed. Implementation of these strategies is already starting to occur. Maintaining and increasing these novel approaches will require coordinated efforts between clinicians, scientists, industry and funding/regulator bodies.

Acetazolamide versus placebo for cerebral oedema requiring dexamethasone in recurrent and/or progressive high-grade glioma: phase II randomised placebo-controlled double-blind study.

OBJECTIVES: Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP when used in other clinical non-cancer settings. The aim of the study was to explore whether the addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent HGG. METHODS: Participants had recurrent HGG with any of dexamethasone recommencement, dose increase or dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dosing, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stable Karnofsky Performance Status Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility. RESULTS: Thirty participants (15 per group) were enrolled (mean age 58 years) from seven Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2 mg. Mean duration on study treatment was 38 days (placebo group) and 31 days (acetazolamide group) with nine participants (30%) completing all study treatments (six placebo, three acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6; one placebo, five acetazolamide) and disease progression (n=6 (three per arm)). Four participants (13%) (two per arm) were stable responders. Ten participants experienced a total of 13 serious adverse events (acetazolamide arm: five participants (33%), six events, two related). CONCLUSIONS: The study closed early due to poor accrual and increasing availability of bevacizumab. The addition of acetazolamide did not facilitate dexamethasone reduction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12615001072505.

Pembrolizumab-induced acute right L5 neuritis unresponsive to steroids.

We present a case of a patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who developed severe right lower limb radicular pain in a L5-S1 dermatomal distribution 5 months into treatment with carboplatin, pemetrexed and pembrolizumab. MRI of the lumbar spine demonstrated contrast enhancement of the right L5 nerve root consistent with neuritis. The patient was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone 2 mg/kg/day for 3 days, followed by oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day with a slow wean over 6 weeks. There was no improvement and their performance status deteriorated to an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 3, representing capability of only limited self-care. We commenced induction therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin 2 g/kg over 5 days, which resulted in complete resolution of pain sustained for 3 weeks before recurrence of symptoms. We continued maintenance therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin 0.4 g/kg over 2 days at 4-5 weekly intervals, which led to resolution of symptoms and ECOG score to 1.

Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA): protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial for people affected by glioblastoma.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system cancer in adults. The objective of the Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA) trial is to test hypotheses in real world setting to improve survival of people with GBM. Initial experimental arms are evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). This study will compare maximal surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months with the addition of (1) 'neoadjuvant' chemotherapy beginning as soon as possible after surgery and/or (2) adjuvant chemotherapy continued until progression within the same study platform. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MAGMA will establish a platform for open-label, multiarm, multicentre randomised controlled testing of treatments for GBM. The study began recruiting in September 2020 and recruitment to the initial two interventions in MAGMA is expected to continue until September 2023.Adults aged ≥18 years with ndGBM will be given the option of undergoing randomisation to each study intervention separately, thereby giving rise to a partial factorial design, with two separate randomisation time points, one for neoadjuvant therapy and one for extended therapy. Patients will have the option of being randomised at each time point or continuing on with standard treatment.The primary outcome for the study is overall survival from the date of initial surgery until death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, time to first non-temozolomide treatment, overall survival from each treatment randomisation, clinically significant toxicity as measured by grade 3 or 4 adverse events and health-related quality-of-life measures. Tertiary outcomes are predictive/prognostic biomarkers and health utilities and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The primary analysis of overall survival will be performed separately for each study intervention according to the intention to treat principle on all patients randomised to each study intervention. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study (Protocol version 2.0 dated 23 November 2020) was approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Sydney Local Health District: 2019/ETH13297). The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12620000048987.

Beyond standard data collection - the promise and potential of BRAIN (Brain tumour Registry Australia INnovation and translation registry).

BACKGROUND: Real-world data (RWD) is increasingly being embraced as an invaluable source of information to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that are unlikely to ever be answered by clinical trials. However, the largely unrealised potential of RWD is the value to be gained by supporting prospective studies and translational research. Here we describe the design and implementation of an Australian brain cancer registry, BRAIN, which is pursuing these opportunities. METHODS: BRAIN was designed by a panel of clinicians in conjunction with BIOGRID to capture comprehensive clinical data on patients diagnosed with brain tumours from diagnosis through treatment to recurrence or death. Extensive internal and external testing was undertaken, followed by implementation at multiple sites across Victoria and Tasmania. RESULTS: Between February 2021 and December 2021, a total of 350 new patients from 10 sites, including one private and two regional, were entered into BRAIN. Additionally, BRAIN supports the world's first registry trial in neuro-oncology, EX-TEM, addressing the optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide; and BioBRAIN, a dedicated brain tumour translational program providing a pipeline for biospecimen collection matched with linked clinical data. CONCLUSIONS: Here we report on the first data collection effort in brain tumours for Australia, which we believe to be unique worldwide given the number of sites and patients involved and the extent to which the registry resource is being leveraged to support clinical and translational research. Further directions such as passive data flow and data linkages, use of artificial intelligence and inclusion of patient-entered data are being explored.

A phase 1b/2 study of PF-06747775 as monotherapy or in combination with Palbociclib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: This Phase 1/2 study (NCT02349633) explored the safety and antitumor activity of PF-06747775 (oral, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after progression on an EGFR inhibitor. METHODS: Phase 1 was a dose-escalation study of PF-06747775 monotherapy (starting dose: 25 mg once daily [QD]). Phase 1b/2 evaluated PF-06747775 monotherapy at recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D; Cohort 1); PF-06747775 200 mg QD plus palbociclib (starting dose: 100 mg QD orally; Cohort 2A); and PF-06747775 monotherapy at RP2D in a Japanese lead-in cohort. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients were treated. Median treatment duration was 40.1 weeks. Monotherapy maximum tolerated dose was not determined. Two patients in Cohort 2A had dose-limiting toxicities. The monotherapy RP2D was estimated to be 200 mg QD. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (69.2%), paronychia (69.2%), and rash (60.0%). Most AEs were grades 1-3. Overall, objective response rate (90% confidence interval [CI]) was 41.5% (31.2-52.5%). Median (range) duration of response was 11.09 (2.70-34.57) months. Median progression-free survival (90% CI) was 8.1 (5.4-23.3) months. CONCLUSIONS: PF-06747775 had a manageable safety profile and the study design highlights important considerations for future anti-EGFR agent development.

Scoping to analyze oncology trial participation in Australia.

Equity in oncology clinical trial participation has been declared a global priority. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere and managed to maintain high clinical trial activity during the COVID pandemic. Despite these successes, there is paucity of understanding about what influences clinical trial participation in Australia. In the international context, systematic reviews have highlighted that sociodemographic barriers, access to health care, clinical trial inclusion criteria, and attitudes of physicians and patients are factors which influence oncology trial participation. Exploring the factors in Australian health services which influence trial participation is now of significant importance. The lack of clear evidence directly highlights a need to assess the factors that influence oncology trial participation in Australia. We call for review of existing data to identify future directions in Australia which will potentially give deeper insights for the international clinical trial community.

Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia. METHODS AND ANALYSES: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Experiencing the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Whilst Living With Cancer.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in considerable consequences for many cancer patients, exacerbating pre-existing systemic health system limitations as well as creating new challenges. From socially distanced clinics and the widespread introduction of telehealth, to the halting of clinical trials and the reassessment of what constitutes "essential" treatment, care in oncology has abruptly changed. There is currently limited analysis of cancer patients' experiences of the pandemic and its impacts on illness, wellness, and everyday life. Through semi-structured interviews with 54 people living with cancer during the 2020 phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Australia, we explore how patients experience illness and care in reflecting upon a range of pandemic challenges, including delay, distance, and vulnerability. We find that in some cases, these pandemic conditions redefined the meaning of essential cancer care, reconfigured expectations around clinical trials, constructed new affective distances, and amplified dread and fear for people living with cancer.

Resilience and ongoing quality care for cancer clinical trials during COVID-19: Experience from a tertiary hospital in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid system-wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging. METHODS: We aimed to describe the COVID-19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts. CONCLUSION: Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations.

From doctors to ancillary staff: Regional and metropolitan cancer workforce perceptions and distress resulting from COVID-19 pandemic adaptations.

INTRODUCTION: The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in necessary and rapid changes to health service delivery. In the Australian context, it has been broadly identified that these impacts have been felt by health care workers (HCW) providing care. We aimed to capture oncology HCW perceptions of support, stress, personal ability to meet needs and institutional preparedness across longitudinal periods of COVID-19 response in the early stages of the pandemic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An electronic survey was developed to measure the weekly impacts and distress experienced by HCW during the early phases of the pandemic. Hospital email communications relating to pandemic directives were noted. HCW included nursing, medical, ancillary staff and allied health team members at 2 study sites, 1 metropolitan and 1 regional center in Queensland, Australia. Descriptive statistics were applied to quantitative data, and a framework analysis for qualitative data. Key themes were synthesized using mixed methods approaches. RESULTS: A total of 176 HCW consented to participate. Four key themes were identified. Key theme 1 was strategies for protection, and included the subthemes of self-isolation, using personal protective equipment (PPE), protecting patients and families and each other. Key theme 2 was navigating rules and keeping up, and included the subthemes of compliance, exceptions, conflict and complex decision fatigue. Key theme 3 was tempered optimism, with subthemes including this is grief, pride in one's place and strategies for coping. Key theme 4 was framing the new normal, with subthemes including using technology, second wave and uncertainty. CONCLUSION: Staff groups reported the emotional impacts of rapid change across clinical areas and centers. Distress corresponded to rapid change amid uncertainty, rather than reported infection rates. These findings give insight into the experiences of patient facing oncology HCW during periods of uncertainty, potentially informing policy in the future.

Routines of isolation? A qualitative study of informal caregiving in the context of glioma in Australia.

Informal caregiving for a person living with glioma can be both rewarding and multidimensionally challenging, given the potential for debilitating symptoms, cognitive impairment or personality changes, as early as diagnosis. There is growing evidence that, due to the demands of care, experiences and feelings of loneliness and isolation among informal caregivers are widespread, and opportunities for quality or meaningful social connectedness are lacking. While considerable research has quantified the causes and effects of loneliness and isolation in informal care contexts, the lived experience of loneliness has received relatively little attention. The aim of this study was to better understand the everyday experiences of a group of home-based informal caregivers of people living with glioma in Queensland, Australia. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 32 informal caregivers, purposively sampled, and recruited through a tertiary hospital, in this paper, we explore how the various experiences, demands, and social and relational dynamics in/of informal care (re)produce forms of isolation and loneliness. Using the framework approach to thematic analysis, we derived four themes: (a) the 'need' to be near the care recipient, and the implications for caregiver mobility; (b) the strong sense of responsibility for care, and the virtues of 'good' caring; (c) experiences of loneliness in the company of others and (d) postponement of social connection and minimising the self. The findings, we argue, are reflective of broader social and moral norms and expectations within experiences of home-based informal care.

Barriers and potential solutions to international collaboration in neuro-oncology clinical trials: Challenges from the Australian perspective.

AIM: The neuro-oncology community in Australia is well positioned to collaborate internationally, with a motivated trials group, strong regulatory bodies and an attractive fiscal environment. We sought to identify gaps in the Australian neuro-oncology clinical trials landscape and describe strategies to increase international trial access in Australia. METHODS: We searched clinical trial registries to identify active adult primary brain cancer trials. We compared the participation rate and phase of these trials between tumour types and countries. A survey was distributed to the Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology membership to identify barriers and solutions to effective international collaboration. RESULTS: Globally, 307 trials for adult primary brain cancers were identified. These included 50% pharmaceutical agents, 18% cellular therapies and 9% radiation therapy. Twelve adult primary brain cancer trials were actively recruiting in Australia at the time the survey was sent out. There were more early phase brain cancer trials (34%) compared with colorectal and breast cancer (21% and 24%, respectively). In Australia, 92% of brain cancer trials were involving pharmaceutical agents. The most commonly cited barrier was lack of funding for international trials (86%) and insufficient research time (75%). High ranking solutions included increasing the availability of funding for international trials and creating opportunities to develop personal relationships with collaborators. Accreditation of clinical research key performance indicators into practice (88%) and hospital accreditation (73%) also ranked highly. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in international research in Australia could be improved by embedding clinical research targets into institutional funding, provision of funding for early phase studies and streamlining mutual ethics schemes.

A sociology of precision-in-practice: The affective and temporal complexities of everyday clinical care.

The idea of 'precision medicine', which has gained increasing traction since the early 2000s, is now ubiquitous in health and medicine. Though varied in its implementation across fields, precision medicine has raised hopes of revolutionary treatments and has spurred the proliferation of novel therapeutics, the alteration of professional trajectories and various reconfigurations of health/care. Nowhere is the promise of precision medicine more apparent, nor further institutionalised, than in the field of oncology. While the transformative potential of precision medicine is widely taken for granted, there remains scant attention to how it is being experienced at the coalface of care. Here, drawing on the perspectives of 54 cancer care professionals gleaned through eight focus group discussions in two hospitals in Australia, we explore clinicians' experiences of the day-to-day dynamics of precision-in-practice. We illustrate some of the affective and temporal complexities, analysed here under the rubrics of enchantment, acceleration and distraction that are emerging alongside the uptake of precision medicine in the field of oncology. We argue that these complexities, and their dis/continuities with earlier iterations of cancer care, demonstrate the need for sociological analyses of precision medicine as it is being implemented in practice and its varied effects on 'routine' care.

Semiqualitative research protocol to explore cancer care workforce perceptions of the health system response to COVID-19 preparations in Southeast Queensland, Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies.