Cancer care for people with dementia: Literature overview and recommendations for practice and research.

As many countries experience population aging, patients with cancer are becoming older and have more preexisting comorbidities, which include prevalent, age-related, chronic conditions such as dementia. People living with dementia (PLWD) are vulnerable to health disparities, and dementia has high potential to complicate and adversely affect care and outcomes across the cancer trajectory. This report offers an overview of dementia and its prevalence among patients with cancer and a summary of the research literature examining cancer care for PLWD. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD are more likely to have cancer diagnosed at an advanced stage, receive no or less extensive cancer treatment, and have poorer survival after a cancer diagnosis. These cancer disparities do not necessarily signify inappropriately later diagnosis or lower treatment of people with dementia as a group, and they are arguably less feasible and appropriate targets for care optimization. The reviewed research indicates that PLWD also have an increased risk of cancer-related emergency presentations, lower quality processes of cancer-related decision making, accessibility-related barriers to cancer investigations and treatment, higher experienced treatment burden and higher caregiver burden for families, and undertreated cancer-related pain. The authors propose that optimal cancer care for PLWD should focus on proactively minimizing these risk areas and thus must be highly person-centered, with holistic decision making, individualized reasonable adjustments to practice, and strong inclusion and support of family carers. Comprehensive recommendations are made for clinical practice and future research to help clinicians and providers deliver best and equitable cancer care for PLWD and their families.

Impacts of fire and prospects for recovery in a tropical peat forest ecosystem.

Uncontrolled fires place considerable burdens on forest ecosystems, compromising our ability to meet conservation and restoration goals. A poor understanding of the impacts of fire on ecosystems and their biodiversity exacerbates this challenge, particularly in tropical regions where few studies have applied consistent analytical techniques to examine a broad range of ecological impacts over multiyear time frames. We compiled 16 y of data on ecosystem properties (17 variables) and biodiversity (21 variables) from a tropical peatland in Indonesia to assess fire impacts and infer the potential for recovery. Burned forest experienced altered structural and microclimatic conditions, resulting in a proliferation of nonforest vegetation and erosion of forest ecosystem properties and biodiversity. Compared to unburned forest, habitat structure, tree density, and canopy cover deteriorated by 58 to 98%, while declines in species diversity and abundance were most pronounced for trees, damselflies, and butterflies, particularly for forest specialist species. Tracking ecosystem property and biodiversity datasets over time revealed most to be sensitive to recurrent high-intensity fires within the wider landscape. These megafires immediately compromised water quality and tree reproductive phenology, crashing commercially valuable fish populations within 3 mo and driving a gradual decline in threatened vertebrates over 9 mo. Burned forest remained structurally compromised long after a burn event, but vegetation showed some signs of recovery over a 12-y period. Our findings demonstrate that, if left uncontrolled, fire may be a pervasive threat to the ecological functioning of tropical forests, underscoring the importance of fire prevention and long-term restoration efforts, as exemplified in Indonesia.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in cancer pain: A database analysis to determine recruitment feasibility for a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Insufficient evidence exists to support or refute use of NSAIDs for managing cancer pain. Palliative physicians support a placebo-controlled trial of NSAIDs as strong opioid adjuncts for cancer-induced bone pain as the most pragmatic design to benefit clinical practice. AIM: We aimed to determine patient numbers receiving palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain, estimate the suitability of NSAID prescription and determine survival, guiding future trial feasibility. DESIGN: A retrospective observational database analysis was undertaken using 5 years of routinely collected regional radiotherapy and healthcare data, filtered to achieve a cohort with cancer-induced bone pain. Demographics and survival were linked to available serology and co-morbidity data. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data was sourced from the regional Leeds Cancer Centre, a tertiary care setting. Patients who underwent palliative single fraction 8 gray (Gy) radiotherapy treatment for cancer-induced bone pain were included, totalling 2411 over 5 years. RESULTS: A mean of 478 patients received palliative radiotherapy for cancer-induced bone pain annually. Median age (IQR) was 70 (62-77); negatively skewed (-0.69). 65.3% died within 1 year of radiotherapy; 48.0% within 6 months. Age was not associated with survival on univariable analysis (HR 0.999 (95% CI 0.996-1.003)). Serology from 1063 patients (44.2%) were available; eGFR was ⩾60 mL/min/1.73 m2 in 83.0%. From available data (1352 pts; 51.6% of sample), 20.2% had a coded co-morbidity contra-indicating NSAIDs. Combining serology and co-morbidities, 68.5% could be considered for NSAID prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Patient numbers at a regional radiotherapy centre support the feasibility of trial recruitment. Available serology and co-morbidity data suggest two-thirds may be suitable for NSAID prescription.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiotherapy services in England, UK: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer outcomes is of increasing concern. However, the extent to which key treatment modalities have been affected is unclear. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiotherapy activity in England. METHODS: In this population-based study, data relating to all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the English NHS, between Feb 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020, were extracted from the National Radiotherapy Dataset. Changes in mean weekly radiotherapy courses, attendances (reflecting fractions), and fractionation patterns following the start of the UK lockdown were compared with corresponding months in 2019 overall, for specific diagnoses, and across age groups. The significance of changes in radiotherapy activity during lockdown was examined using interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis. FINDINGS: In 2020, mean weekly radiotherapy courses fell by 19·9% in April, 6·2% in May, and 11·6% in June compared with corresponding months in 2019. A relatively greater fall was observed for attendances (29·1% in April, 31·4% in May, and 31·5% in June). These changes were significant on ITS analysis (p<0·0001). A greater reduction in treatment courses between 2019 and 2020 was seen for patients aged 70 years or older compared with those aged younger than 70 years (34·4% vs 7·3% in April). By diagnosis, the largest reduction from 2019 to 2020 in treatment courses was for prostate cancer (77·0% in April) and non-melanoma skin cancer (72·4% in April). Conversely, radiotherapy courses in April, 2020, compared with April, 2019, increased by 41·2% in oesophageal cancer, 64·2% in bladder cancer, and 36·3% in rectal cancer. Increased use of ultra-hypofractionated (26 Gy in five fractions) breast radiotherapy as a percentage of all courses (0·2% in April, 2019, to 60·6% in April, 2020; ITS p<0·0001) contributed to the substantial reduction in attendances. INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy activity fell significantly, but use of hypofractionated regimens rapidly increased in the English NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An increase in treatments for some cancers suggests that radiotherapy compensated for reduced surgical activity. These data will assist health-care providers in understanding the indirect consequences of the pandemic and the role of radiotherapy services in minimising these consequences. FUNDING: None.

Low-dose pembrolizumab in the treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

A dose of 200 mg 3-weekly of pembrolizumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as treatment for advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) without oncogenic drivers. This is despite evidence showing no difference in efficacy with 2 mg/kg. Our study aimed to assess the efficacy of a lower fixed dose of 100 mg, which is closer to 2 mg/kg weight-based dose in an average-sized Asian patient. All patients receiving pembrolizumab for advanced NSCLC from January 2016 to March 2020 in National University Hospital, Singapore, were included in this retrospective observational study. The effect of pembrolizumab 100 mg (Pem100) vs 200 mg (Pem200) upon survival outcomes, toxicity and cost were examined. One hundred fourteen patients received pembrolizumab. Sixty-five (57%) and 49 (43%) received Pem100 and Pem200, respectively. There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between Pem100 vs Pem200 as a single agent (PFS: 6.8 vs 4.2 months, hazard ratio [HR] 0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.36-1.46, P = .36; 9 month OS: 58% vs 63%, HR 1.08, 95% CI 0.48-2.41, P = .86) and when combined with chemotherapy (9-month PFS: 60% vs 50%, HR0.84, 95% CI 0.34-2.08, P = .71; 9-month OS: 85% vs 58%, HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.062-1.20, P = .09). No significant difference in response rate or ≥G3 immune-related toxicities between Pem100 and Pem200 was observed. A cost minimisation analysis evaluating the degree of cost savings related to drug costs estimated a within study cost saving of SGD4,290,912 and cost saving per patient of SGD39,942 in the Pem100 group. A 100 mg of pembrolizumab appears to be effective with reduction in cost. A randomised trial should be done to investigate a lower dose of pembrolizumab.

Surgery or radiotherapy for stage I lung cancer? An intention-to-treat analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Surgery is the standard of care for early-stage lung cancer, with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) a lower morbidity alternative for patients with limited physiological reserve. Comparisons of outcomes between these treatment options are limited by competing comorbidities and differences in pre-treatment pathological information. This study aims to address these issues by assessing both overall and cancer-specific survival for presumed stage I lung cancer on an intention-to-treat basis. METHODS: This retrospective intention-to-treat analysis identified all patients treated for presumed stage I lung cancer within a single large UK centre. Overall survival, cancer-specific survival, and combined cancer and treatment-related survival were assessed with adjustment for confounding variables using Cox proportional hazards and Fine-Gray competing risks analyses. RESULTS: 468 patients (including 316 surgery and 99 SABR) were included in the study population. Compared with surgery, SABR was associated with inferior overall survival on multivariable Cox modelling (SABR HR 1.84 (95% CI 1.32-2.57)), but there was no difference in cancer-specific survival (SABR HR 1.47 (95% CI 0.80-2.69)) or combined cancer and treatment-related survival (SABR HR 1.27 (95% CI 0.74-2.17)). Combined cancer and treatment-related death was no different between SABR and surgery on Fine-Gray competing risks multivariable modelling (subdistribution hazard 1.03 (95% CI 0.59-1.81)). Non-cancer-related death was significantly higher in SABR than surgery (subdistribution hazard 2.16 (95% CI 1.41-3.32)). CONCLUSION: In this analysis, no difference in cancer-specific survival was observed between SABR and surgery. Further work is needed to define predictors of outcome and help inform treatment decisions.

Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

OBJECTIVE: Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare. DESIGN: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. RESULTS: 41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022347652.

Adjusting for comorbidity in observational cancer studies: A systematic review to assess alignment between index and study.

Epidemiological and retrospective clinical studies on cancer outcomes frequently adjust for patients' comorbid conditions. Despite the existence of multiple comorbidity indices, the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) is the most frequently applied. Indices are developed in specific settings and the extent of alignment between the development setting and subsequent study is unclear. The present study provides a contemporaneous snapshot of comorbidity indices used in retrospective observational cancer studies and the extent to which cancer type(s), data source(s) and outcome(s) matched the studies in which the indices were developed. A systematic literature search in PubMed identified retrospective, observational studies on outcomes in patients with cancer published between March 2015 and March 2020. Information including the cancer type, data source and outcome were extracted and compared to those used in the validation study of the comorbidity index used. Of 158 papers reviewed, 79 used the CCI, either alone or in combination with other indices. The cancer type matched to that used in the validation study of the comorbidity index in 16 of the 115 studies using an established index, whilst the data source matched in 27 studies and outcome in only two. Justification was rarely provided for index choice (15 of the 115 studies). It may be concluded that, while the CCI remains the dominant comorbidity index, it may not always align to key elements of the study design in terms of cancer type, data source and outcome. A range of indices exists and identification of the most appropriate measure has the potential to improve adjustment for comorbidity. The present study provided information about the indices used in included studies and encourages future studies to consider which comorbidity index offers the best alignment with the study population, data source and question addressed.

How does staff and patient feedback on hospital quality relate to mortality outcomes? A provider-level national study.

This study aimed to use national data to examine the relationship between staff and inpatient survey results (National Health Service (NHS) Friends and Family Test (FFT)) and assess how these align with more traditional measurements of hospital quality as captured by the summary hospital mortality indicator (SHMI). Provider level FFT responses were obtained for 128 English non-specialist acute providers for staff and inpatients between April 2016 and March 2019. Multilevel linear regression models assessed the relationship between staff and patient FFT recommendations, and separately how SHMI related to each of staff and patient FFT recommendations. A total of 1,536 observations were recorded across all providers and financial quarters. Patients were more likely to recommend their provider (95.5%) than staff (76.8%). In multivariable regression, a statistically significant association was observed between staff and patient FFT recommendations. A statistically significant negative relationship was also observed between staff FFT recommendations and SHMI. The association between SHMI and staff FFT recommendations suggests that staff feedback tools may provide a useful analogue for providers in potential need of intervention and improvement in care. For patients meanwhile, qualitative approaches and hospital organisations working in partnership with patients may provide better opportunities for patients to drive improvement.

Cohort profile: radiotherapy dataset (RTDS) in England.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the Radiotherapy Dataset (RTDS) is to collect consistent and comparable data across all providers of National Health Service (NHS)-funded radiotherapy and to provide intelligence for service planning, commissioning, clinical practice and research. PARTICIPANTS: The RTDS is a mandated dataset requiring providers to collect and submit data monthly for patients treated in England. Data is available from 01 April 2009 to 2 months behind the calendar month.The National Disease Registration Service (NDRS) started receiving data from 01 April 2016. Prior to this, the National Clinical Analysis and Specialised Applications Team (NATCANSAT) were responsible for the RTDS. NDRS holds a copy of the NATCANSAT data for English NHS providers.The RTDS contains clinical information on the primary disease being treated, modality and intent of treatment, dose fractionation and hospital appointment details. Due to constraints in RTDS coding, linkage to the English National Cancer Registration dataset is beneficial. FINDINGS TO DATE: The RTDS has been linked to the English National Cancer Registration and Systemic Anti-Cancer Therapy (SACT) datasets and to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) to provide a more complete picture of the patient cancer pathway. Findings include a study to compare outcomes for patients treated with radical radiotherapy, an investigation of factors influencing 30-day mortality, assessing sociodemographic variation in the use of treatment and a study to assess the service impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. A range of other studies have been completed or are ongoing currently. FUTURE PLANS: The RTDS can be used for a variety of functions including cancer epidemiological studies to investigate inequalities in treatment access; provide service planning intelligence; monitor clinical practice; and support clinical trial design and recruitment. Collection is to continue indefinitely, with regular updates to the data specification to enable capture of more detailed information on radiotherapy planning and delivery.

Fixing the Leaky Pipe: How to Improve the Uptake of Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Prognostic and Predictive Models in Cancer Clinical Practice.

PURPOSE: This discussion paper outlines challenges and proposes solutions for successfully implementing prediction models that incorporate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer practice. METHODS: We organized a full-day multidisciplinary meeting of people with expertise in cancer care delivery, PRO collection, PRO use in prediction modeling, computing, implementation, and decision science. The discussions presented here focused on identifying challenges to the development, implementation and use of prediction models incorporating PROs, and suggesting possible solutions. RESULTS: Specific challenges and solutions were identified across three broad areas. (1) Understanding decision making and implementation: necessitating multidisciplinary collaboration in the early stages and throughout; early stakeholder engagement to define the decision problem and ensure acceptability of PROs in prediction; understanding patient/clinician interpretation of PRO predictions and uncertainty to optimize prediction impact; striving for model integration into existing electronic health records; and early regulatory alignment. (2) Recognizing the limitations to PRO collection and their impact on prediction: incorporating validated, clinically important PROs to maximize model generalizability and clinical engagement; and minimizing missing PRO data (resulting from both structural digital exclusion and time-varying factors) to avoid exacerbating existing inequalities. (3) Statistical and modeling challenges: incorporating statistical methods to address missing data; ensuring predictive modeling recognizes complex causal relationships; and considering temporal and geographic recalibration so that model predictions reflect the relevant population. CONCLUSION: Developing and implementing PRO-based prediction models in cancer care requires extensive multidisciplinary working from the earliest stages, recognition of implementation challenges because of PRO collection and model presentation, and robust statistical methods to manage missing data, causality, and calibration. Prediction models incorporating PROs should be viewed as complex interventions, with their development and impact assessment carried out to reflect this.

Implications of large-scale infrastructure development for biodiversity in Indonesian Borneo.

Indonesia is embarking on an ambitious relocation of its capital city to Kalimantan, Borneo, bringing with it major urban and road infrastructure. Yet, despite being one of the world's most biologically diverse regions, the potential implications of this development for wildlife have yet to be fully assessed. We explored the potential impacts of the capital relocation, and road expansion and upgrades to critical habitat for medium-large mammals (>1 kg) using camera trap data from 11 forested landscapes. We applied Bayesian multi-species occupancy models to predict community and species-level responses to anthropogenic and environmental factors. We extrapolated spatial patterns of occupancy and species diversity across the forests of Kalimantan and identified "critical habitats" as the top 20th percentile of occupancy and species richness values. We subsequently overlapped these critical habitat layers with infrastructure impact zones to estimate the area that could potentially be affected by direct or secondary impacts. At both the community and species-level, distance to primary roads had the strongest negative influence on habitat-use. Occupancy was also influenced by forest quality and multidimensional poverty conditions in adjacent villages, demonstrating the sensitivity of biodiversity to socio-ecological pressures. Less than 1 % of the critical habitat for the threatened mammal community lay within the direct impact zone (30 km radius) of the capital relocation. However, approximately 16 % was located within 200 km and could potentially be affected by uncontrolled secondary impacts such as urban sprawl and associated regional development. The often-overlooked secondary implications of upgrading existing roads could also intersect a large amount of critical habitat for lowland species. Mitigating far-reaching secondary impacts of infrastructure development should be fully incorporated into environmental impact assessments. This will provide Indonesia with an opportunity to set an example of sustainable infrastructure development in the tropics.

Variable and fixed costs in NHS radiotherapy; consequences for increasing hypo fractionation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: The increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy changes department activity. While expected to be cost-effective, departments' fixed costs may impede savings. Understanding radiotherapy's cost-drivers, to what extent these are fixed and consequences of reducing activity can help to inform reimbursement strategies. MATERIAL/METHODS: We estimate the cost of radiotherapy provision, using time-driven activity-based costing, for five bone metastases treatment strategies, in a large NHS provider. We compare these estimations to reimbursement tariff and assess their breakdown by cost types: fixed (buildings), semi-fixed (staff, linear accelerators) and variable (materials) costs. Sensitivity analyses assess the cost-drivers and impact of reducing departmental activity on the costs of remaining treatments, with varying disinvestment assumptions. RESULTS: The estimated radiotherapy cost for bone metastases ranges from 430.95€ (single fraction) to 4240.76€ (45 Gy in 25#). Provider costs align closely with NHS reimbursement, except for the stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) strategy (tariff exceeding by 15.3%). Semi-fixed staff costs account for 28.1-39.7% and fixed/semi-fixed equipment/space costs 38.5-54.8% of provider costs. Departmental activity is the biggest cost-driver; reduction in activity increasing cost, predominantly in fractionated treatments. Decommissioning linear accelerators ameliorates this, although can only be realised at equipment capacity thresholds. CONCLUSION: Hypofractionation is less burdensome to patients and long-term offers a cost-efficient mechanism to treat an increasing number of patients within existing capacity. As a large majority of treatment costs are fixed/semi-fixed, disinvestment is complex, within the life expectancy of a linac, imbalances between demand and capacity will result in higher treatment costs. With a per-fraction reimbursement, this may disincentivise delivery of hypofractionated treatments.

Replacing performance status with a simple patient-reported outcome in palliative radiotherapy prognostic modelling.

Background and purpose: Prognostication is key to determining care in advanced incurable cancer. Although performance status (PS) has been shown to be a strong prognostic predictor, inter-rater reliability is limited, restricting models to specialist settings. This study assessed the extent to which a simple patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), the EQ-5D, may replace PS for prognosis of patients with bone metastases. Materials and methods: Data from 1,011 patients in the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study were used. Cox proportional hazards models were developed to investigate the prognostic value of models incorporating PS alone, the EQ-5D SC dimension alone, all EQ-5D dimensions and EQ-VAS, and finally all dimensions and PS. Three prognostic groups were identified and performance assessed using the Harrell's C-index and Altman-Royston index of separation. Results: Replacing performance status (PS) with the self-care (SC) dimension of the EQ-5D provides similar model performance. In our SC-based model, three groups are identified with median survival of 86 days (95 % CI 76-101), 174 days (95 % CI 145-213), and 483 days (95 % CI 431-539). Whilst not statistically significantly different, the C-index was 0.706 for the PS-only model, 0.718 for SC-only and 0.717 in our full model, suggesting patient-report outcome models perform as well as that based on PS. Conclusion: Prognostic performance was similar across all models. The SC model provides prognostic value similar to that of PS, particularly where a prognosis of<6 months is considered. Larger, more contemporaneous studies are needed to assess the extent to which PROMs may be of prognostic value, particularly where specialist assessment is less feasible.

Radiation oncology teaching provision and practice prior to and during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in medical schools in the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland: a cross-sectional survey.

OBJECTIVES: Radiotherapy is a key cancer treatment modality but is poorly understood by doctors. We sought to evaluate radiation oncology (RO) teaching in medical schools within the United Kingdom (UK) and Republic of Ireland (RoI), as well as any impacts on RO teaching delivery from the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: A bespoke online survey instrument was developed, piloted and distributed to oncology teaching leads at all UK and RoI medical schools. Questions were designed to capture information on the structure, format, content and faculty for RO teaching, as well as both the actual and the predicted short- and long-term impacts of COVID-19. RESULTS: Responses were received from 29/41 (71%) UK and 5/6 (83%) RoI medical schools. Pre-clinical and clinical oncology teaching was delivered over a median of 2 weeks (IQR 1-6), although only 9 (27%) of 34 responding medical schools had a standalone RO module. RO teaching was most commonly delivered in clinics or wards (n = 26 and 25 respectively). Few medical schools provided teaching on the biological basis for radiotherapy (n = 11) or the RO career pathway (n = 8), and few provide teaching delivered by non-medical RO multidisciplinary team members. There was evidence of short- and long-term disruption to RO teaching from COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: RO teaching in the UK and RoI is limited with minimal coverage of relevant theoretical principles and little exposure to radiotherapy departments and their non-medical team members. The COVID-19 pandemic risks exacerbating trainee doctors' already constrained exposure to radiotherapy. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: This study provides the first analysis of radiotherapy-related teaching in the UK and RoI, and the first to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiationoncology teaching.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: There are concerns that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative effect on cancer care but there is little direct evidence to quantify any effect. This study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the detection and management of colorectal cancer in England. METHODS: Data were extracted from four population-based datasets spanning NHS England (the National Cancer Cancer Waiting Time Monitoring, Monthly Diagnostic, Secondary Uses Service Admitted Patient Care and the National Radiotherapy datasets) for all referrals, colonoscopies, surgical procedures, and courses of rectal radiotherapy from Jan 1, 2019, to Oct 31, 2020, related to colorectal cancer in England. Differences in patterns of care were investigated between 2019 and 2020. Percentage reductions in monthly numbers and proportions were calculated. FINDINGS: As compared to the monthly average in 2019, in April, 2020, there was a 63% (95% CI 53-71) reduction (from 36 274 to 13 440) in the monthly number of 2-week referrals for suspected cancer and a 92% (95% CI 89-95) reduction in the number of colonoscopies (from 46 441 to 3484). Numbers had just recovered by October, 2020. This resulted in a 22% (95% CI 8-34) relative reduction in the number of cases referred for treatment (from a monthly average of 2781 in 2019 to 2158 referrals in April, 2020). By October, 2020, the monthly rate had returned to 2019 levels but did not exceed it, suggesting that, from April to October, 2020, over 3500 fewer people had been diagnosed and treated for colorectal cancer in England than would have been expected. There was also a 31% (95% CI 19-42) relative reduction in the numbers receiving surgery in April, 2020, and a lower proportion of laparoscopic and a greater proportion of stoma-forming procedures, relative to the monthly average in 2019. By October, 2020, laparoscopic surgery and stoma rates were similar to 2019 levels. For rectal cancer, there was a 44% (95% CI 17-76) relative increase in the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy in April, 2020, relative to the monthly average in 2019, due to greater use of short-course regimens. Although in June, 2020, there was a drop in the use of short-course regimens, rates remained above 2019 levels until October, 2020. INTERPRETATION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a sustained reduction in the number of people referred, diagnosed, and treated for colorectal cancer. By October, 2020, achievement of care pathway targets had returned to 2019 levels, albeit with smaller volumes of patients and with modifications to usual practice. As pressure grows in the NHS due to the second wave of COVID-19, urgent action is needed to address the growing burden of undetected and untreated colorectal cancer in England. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, the Medical Research Council, Public Health England, Health Data Research UK, NHS Digital, and the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Net Pain Relief After Palliative Radiation Therapy for Painful Bone Metastases: A Useful Measure to Reflect Response Duration? A Further Analysis of the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study.

PURPOSE: Pain response rates are equivalent after single 8 Gy and fractionated palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases. Reirradiation remains more frequent after a single fraction, although this does not simply reflect pain recurrence. Given the possible role of stereotactic radiation therapy in providing durable pain control, measures of durability are required. Net pain relief (NPR), the proportion of remaining life spent with pain response, may provide this. This study assesses the use of NPR as an outcome measure after palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected in the Dutch Bone Metastasis Study, a randomized trial comparing palliative radiation therapy delivered as 8 Gy in a single fraction and 24 Gy in 6 fractions. NPR was assessed by survival cohorts, treatment regimen, and primary diagnoses. The consequences of missing data upon the use of NPR in future studies were considered within sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Patients whose pain improved after palliative radiation therapy experienced improvement for 56.6% of their remaining lives. Missing responses in questionnaires mean the range of uncertainty in NPR is 36.1% to 62.1%. When response beyond reirradiation was excluded, NPR after treatments of single-fraction 8 Gy and 24 Gy in 6 fractions was 49.0% and 56.5%, respectively (P = .004). Differential willingness to reirradiate may be influencing this outcome. When response beyond reirradiation was included, this difference was not seen (NPR of 55.4% vs 57.7%, respectively [P = .191]). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who responded to conventional radiation therapy experienced improved pain control for approximately half of their remaining life. NPR may provide valuable information in assessing pain response durability. Missing data are, however, inevitable in this population. This must be minimized and the consequences recognized and reported. Additionally, reirradiation protocols and the frequency and duration of trial follow-up may have a significant impact upon this outcome, requiring careful consideration during trial design if NPR is to be used in future studies.

Rectal cancer in old age -is it appropriately managed? Evidence from population-based analysis of routine data across the English national health service.

BACKGROUND: There is significant debate as to where to draw the line between undertreating older rectal cancer patients and minimising treatment risks. This study sought to examine the use of radical rectal cancer treatments and associated outcomes in relation to age across the English NHS. METHODS: Patient, tumour and treatment characteristics for all patients diagnosed with a first primary rectal cancer in England between 1st April 2009 and 31st December 2014 were obtained from the CORECT-R data repository. Descriptive analyses and adjusted logistic regression models were undertaken to examine any association between age and the use of major resection and post-surgical outcomes. Funnel plots were used to show variation in adjusted rates of major resection. RESULTS: The proportion of patients who underwent a major surgical resection fell from 66.5% to 31.7%, amongst those aged <70 and aged ≥80 respectively. After adjustment, 30-day post-operative mortality, failure to rescue and prolonged length of stay were significantly higher among the oldest group when compared to the youngest. Patient reported outcomes were not significantly worse amongst older patients. Significant variation was observed in adjusted surgical resection rates in the oldest patients between NHS Trusts. The probability of death due to cancer was comparable across all age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients who are selected for surgery have good outcomes, often comparable to their younger counterparts. Significant variation in the treatment of older patients could not be explained by differences in measured characteristics and required further investigation.