Radical cancer treatment is safe during COVID-19: the real-world experience of a large London-based Comprehensive Cancer Centre during the first wave.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID pandemic, there was a paucity of data to support clinical decision-making for anticancer treatments. We evaluated the safety of radical treatments which were delivered whilst mitigating the risks of concurrent COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Using descriptive statistics, we report on the characteristics and short-term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing radical cancer treatment during the first COVID-19 wave compared to a similar pre-pandemic period. RESULTS: Compared to 2019, the number of patients undergoing radical treatment in 2020 reduced by: 28% for surgery; 18% for SACT; and 10% for RT. Within SACT, 36% received combination therapy, 35% systemic chemotherapy, 23% targeted treatments, 5% immunotherapy and 2% biological therapy. A similar proportion of RT was delivered in 2019 and 2020 (53% vs. 52%). Oncological outcomes were also similar to pre-COVID-19. The COVID-19 infection rates were low: 12 patients were positive pre surgery (1%), 7 post surgery (<1%), 17 SACT patients (2%) and 3 RT patients (<1%). No COVID-19-related deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there were fewer patients receiving radical anticancer treatments, those who did receive treatment were treated in a safe environment. Overall, cancer patients should have the confidence to attend hospitals and be reassured of the safety measures implemented.

Prostatic adenocarcinoma presenting with metastatic frontal bone involvement and orbital invasion.

We present a rare case of prostatic adenocarcinoma presenting with metastatic frontal bone involvement with subsequent spread to the orbit. Although prostatic adenocarcinoma has a strong tendency to metastasize to bone, particularly axial skeletal bone, frontal bone involvement is rare and subsequent orbital involvement is even more so.

Intratumoral Hydrogen Peroxide With Radiation Therapy in Locally Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From a Phase 1 Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) plays a vital role in normal cellular processes but at supraphysiological concentrations causes oxidative stress and cytotoxicity, a property that is potentially exploitable for the treatment of cancer in combination with radiation therapy (RT). We report the first phase 1 trial testing the safety and tolerability of intratumoral H2O2 + external beam RT as a novel combination in patients with breast cancer and exploratory plasma marker analyses investigating possible mechanisms of action. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twelve patients with breast tumors ≥3 cm (surgically or medically inoperable) received intratumoral H2O2 with either 36 Gy in 6 twice-weekly fractions (n = 6) or 49.5 Gy in 18 daily fractions (n = 6) to the whole breast ± locoregional lymph nodes in a single-center, nonrandomized study. H2O2 was mixed in 1% sodium hyaluronate gel (final H2O2 concentration 0.5%) before administration to slow drug release and minimize local discomfort. The mixture was injected intratumorally under ultrasound guidance twice weekly 1 hour before RT. The primary endpoint was patient-reported maximum intratumoral pain intensity before and 24 hours postinjection. Secondary endpoints included grade ≥3 skin toxicity and tumor response by ultrasound. Blood samples were collected before, during, and at the end of treatment for cell-death and immune marker analysis. RESULTS: Compliance with H2O2 and RT was 100%. Five of 12 patients reported moderate pain after injection (grade 2 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v4.02) with median duration 60 minutes (interquartile range, 20-120 minutes). Skin toxicity was comparable to RT alone, with maintained partial/complete tumor response relative to baseline in 11 of 12 patients at last follow-up (median 12 months). Blood marker analysis highlighted significant associations of TRAIL, IL-1ß, IL-4, and MIP-1α with tumor response. CONCLUSIONS: Intratumoral H2O2 with RT is well tolerated with no additional toxicity compared with RT alone. If efficacy is confirmed in a randomized phase 2 trial, the approach has potential as a cost-effective radiation response enhancer in multiple cancer types in which locoregional control after RT alone remains poor.