The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned.

Radiotherapy respiratory motion management in hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies: a systematic review of patient factors influencing effectiveness of motion reduction with abdominal compression.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of abdominal compression for motion management in hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HPB) radiotherapy has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS & MATERIALS: A systematic review was carried out using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases up to 1 July 2021. No date restrictions were applied. Additional searches were carried out using the University of Manchester digital library, Google Scholar and of retrieved papers' reference lists. Studies conducted evaluating respiratory motion utilising imaging with and without abdominal compression in the same patients available in English were included. Studies conducted in healthy volunteers or majority non-HPB sites, not providing descriptive motion statistics or patient characteristics before and after compression in the same patients or published without peer-review were excluded. A narrative synthesis was employed by tabulating retrieved studies and organising chronologically by abdominal compression device type to help identify patterns in the evidence. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 152 patients. Designs were a mix of retrospective and prospective quantitative designs with chronological, non-randomised recruitment. Abdominal compression reduced craniocaudal respiratory motion in the majority of patients, although in four studies there were increases seen in at least one direction. The influence of patient comorbidities on effectiveness of compression, and/or comfort with compression was not evaluated in any study. CONCLUSION: Abdominal compression may not be appropriate for all patients, and benefit should be weighed with potential increase in motion or discomfort in patients with small initial motion (<5 mm). Patient factors including male sex, and high body mass index (BMI) were found to impact the effectiveness of compression, however with limited evidence. High-quality studies are warranted to fully assess the clinical impact of abdominal compression on treatment outcomes and toxicity prospective in comparison to other motion management strategies.

Optimising treatment pathways for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an adaptive personalised approach.

The treatment paradigm for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer is evolving with an increased shift towards utilising systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiation to potentially facilitate more curative resections. This has been driven by the improved outcomes from the use systemic combination chemotherapy on its own, or sequentially with chemoradiation, resulting in improved resection rates and survival outcomes.

Considerations for the treatment of pancreatic cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: the UK consensus position.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic epicentre has moved to the USA and Europe, where it is placing unprecedented demands on healthcare resources and staff availability. These service constraints, coupled with concerns relating to an increased incidence and severity of COVID-19 among patients with cancer, should lead to re-consideration of the risk-benefit balance for standard treatment pathways. This is of particular importance to pancreatic cancer, given that standard diagnostic modalities such as endoscopy may be restricted, and that disease biology precludes significant delays in treatment. In light of this, we sought consensus from UK clinicians with an interest in pancreatic cancer for management approaches that would minimise patient risk and accommodate for healthcare service restrictions. The outcomes are described here and include recommendations for treatment prioritisation, strategies to bridge to later surgical resection in resectable disease and factors that modify the risk-benefit balance for treatment in the resectable through to the metastatic settings. Priority is given to strategies that limit hospital visits, including through the use of hypofractionated precision radiotherapy and chemoradiotherapy treatment approaches.

Study protocol: a multi-centre randomised study of induction chemotherapy followed by capecitabine ± nelfinavir with high- or standard-dose radiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP-2).

BACKGROUND: Induction chemotherapy followed by chemoradiation is a treatment option for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC). However, overall survival is comparable to chemotherapy alone and local progression occurs in nearly half of all patients, suggesting chemoradiation strategies should be optimised. SCALOP-2 is a randomised phase II trial testing the role of radiotherapy dose escalation and/or the addition of the radiosensitiser nelfinavir, following induction chemotherapy of gemcitabine and nab-paclitaxel (GEMABX). A safety run-in phase (stage 1) established the nelfinavir dose to administer with chemoradiation in the randomised phase (stage 2). METHODS: Patients with locally advanced, inoperable, non-metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma receive three cycles of induction GEMABX chemotherapy prior to radiological assessment. Those with stable/responding disease are eligible for further trial treatment. In Stage 1, participants received one further cycle of GEMABX followed by capecitabine-chemoradiation with escalating doses of nelfinavir in a rolling-six design. Stage 2 aims to register 262 and randomise 170 patients with responding/stable disease to one of five arms: capecitabine with high- (arms C + D) or standard-dose (arms A + B) radiotherapy with (arms A + C) or without (arms B + D) nelfinavir, or three more cycles of GEMABX (arm E). Participants allocated to the chemoradiation arms receive another cycle of GEMABX before chemoradiation begins. Co-primary outcomes are 12-month overall survival (radiotherapy dose-escalation question) and progression-free survival (nelfinavir question). Secondary outcomes include toxicity, quality of life, disease response rate, resection rate, treatment compliance, and CA19-9 response. SCALOP-2 incorporates a detailed radiotherapy quality assurance programme. DISCUSSION: SCALOP-2 aims to optimise chemoradiation in LAPC and incorporates a modern induction regimen. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2013-004968-56; ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02024009.

The Glasgow Prognostic Score at the Time of Palliative Esophageal Stent Insertion is a Predictive Factor of 30-Day Mortality and Overall Survival.

BACKGROUND: Optimizing the timing of esophageal stent insertion is a challenge, partly due to difficulty predicting survival in advanced malignancy. The Glasgow prognostic score (GPS) is a validated tool for predicting survival in a number of cancers. GOALS: To assess the utility of the GPS in predicting 30-day mortality and overall survival postesophageal stent insertion. STUDY: Patients at a tertiary referral center who had received an esophageal stent for palliation of dysphagia were included if they had a measurement of albumin and C-reactive protein (CRP) in the week preceding the procedure (n=209). Patients with both an elevated CRP (>10 mg/L) and hypoalbuminemia (<35 g/L) were given a GPS score of 2 (GPS2). Patients with only one of these abnormalities were assigned as GPS1 and those with normal CRP and albumin were assigned as GPS0. Clinical and pathologic parameters were also collected to assess for potential confounding factors in the survival analysis. RESULTS: Increasing GPS was associated with 30-day mortality; for patients with GPS0, 30-day mortality was 5% (2/43), for GPS1 it was 23% (26/114), and for GPS2 it was 33% (17/52). The adjusted hazard ratio for overall poststent mortality was 1.6 (95% confidence interval, 1.1-2.4; P=0.02) for GPS1 and 2.4 (95% confidence interval, 1.5-3.8; P<0.001) for GPS2 patients compared with GPS0. CONCLUSIONS: GPS is an independent prognostic factor of 30-day mortality and overall survival after esophageal stent insertion. It is a potential adjunct to clinical assessment in identifying those patients at high-risk of short-term mortality poststent.

Respiratory-gated (4D) contrast-enhanced FDG PET-CT for radiotherapy planning of lower oesophageal carcinoma: feasibility and impact on planning target volume.

BACKGROUND: To assess the feasibility and potential impact on target delineation of respiratory-gated (4D) contrast-enhanced 18Fluorine fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography - computed tomography (PET-CT), in the treatment planning position, for a prospective cohort of patients with lower third oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Fifteen patients were recruited into the study. Imaging included 4D PET-CT, 3D PET-CT, endoscopic ultrasound and planning 4D CT. Target volume delineation was performed on 4D CT, 4D CT with co-registered 3D PET and 4D PET-CT. Planning target volumes (PTV) generated with 4D CT (PTV4DCT), 4D CT co-registered with 3D PET-CT (PTV3DPET4DCT) and 4D PET-CT (PTV4DPETCT) were compared with multiple positional metrics. RESULTS: Mean PTV4DCT, PTV3DPET4DCT and PTV4DPETCT were 582.4 ± 275.1 cm3, 472.5 ± 193.1 cm3 and 480.6 ± 236.9 cm3 respectively (no significant difference). Median DICE similarity coefficients comparing PTV4DCT with PTV3DPET4DCT, PTV4DCT with PTV4DPETCT and PTV3DPET4DCT with PTV4DPETCT were 0.85 (range 0.65-0.9), 0.85 (range 0.69-0.9) and 0.88 (range 0.79-0.9) respectively. The median sensitivity index for overlap comparing PTV4DCT with PTV3DPET4DCT, PTV4DCT with PTV4DPETCT and PTV3DPET4DCT with PTV4DPETCT were 0.78 (range 0.65-0.9), 0.79 (range 0.65-0.9) and 0.89 (range 0.68-0.94) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Planning 4D PET-CT is feasible with careful patient selection. PTV generated using 4D CT, 3D PET-CT and 4D PET-CT were of similar volume, however, overlap analysis demonstrated that approximately 20% of PTV3DPETCT and PTV4DPETCT are not included in PTV4DCT, leading to under-coverage of target volume and a potential geometric miss. Additionally, differences between PTV3DPET4DCT and PTV4DPETCT suggest a potential benefit for 4D PET-CT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier - NCT02285660 (Registered 21/10/2014).

A phase-I trial of pre-operative, margin intensive, stereotactic body radiation therapy for pancreatic cancer: the 'SPARC' trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Standard therapy for borderline-resectable pancreatic cancer in the UK is surgery with adjuvant chemotherapy, but rates of resection with clear margins are unsatisfactory and overall survival remains poor. Meta-analysis of single-arm studies shows the potential of neo-adjuvant chemo-radiotherapy but the relative radio-resistance of pancreatic cancer means the efficacy of conventional dose schedules is limited. Stereotactic radiotherapy achieves sufficient accuracy and precision to enable pre-operative margin-intensive dose escalation with the goal of increasing rates of clear resection margins and local disease control. METHODS/DESIGN: SPARC is a "rolling-six" design single-arm study to establish the maximum tolerated dose for margin-intensive stereotactic radiotherapy before resection of pancreatic cancer at high risk of positive resection margins. Eligible patients will have histologically or cytologically proven pancreatic cancer defined as borderline-resectable per National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria or operable tumour in contact with vessels increasing the risk of positive margin. Up to 24 patients will be recruited from up to 5 treating centres and a 'rolling-six' design is utilised to minimise delays and facilitate ongoing recruitment during dose-escalation. Radiotherapy will be delivered in 5 daily fractions and surgery, if appropriate, will take place 5-6 weeks after radiotherapy. The margin-intense radiotherapy concept includes a systematic method to define the target volume for a simultaneous integrated boost in the region of tumour-vessel infiltration, and up to 4 radiotherapy dose levels will be investigated. Maximum tolerated dose is defined as the highest dose at which no more than 1 of 6 patients or 0 of 3 patients experience a dose limiting toxicity. Secondary endpoints include resection rate, resection margin status, response rate, overall survival and progression free survival at 12 and 24 months. Translational work will involve exploratory analyses of the cytological and humoral immunological responses to stereotactic radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer. Radiotherapy quality assurance of target definition and radiotherapy planning is enforced with pre-trial test cases and on-trial review. Recruitment began in April 2015. DISCUSSION: This prospective multi-centre study aims to establish the maximum tolerated dose of pre-operative margin-intensified stereotactic radiotherapy in pancreatic cancer at high risk of positive resection margins with a view to subsequent definitive comparison with other neoadjuvant treatment options. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN14138956 . Funded by CRUK.

NEOSCOPE: a randomised Phase II study of induction chemotherapy followed by either oxaliplatin/capecitabine or paclitaxel/carboplatin based chemoradiation as pre-operative regimen for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Both oxaliplatin/capecitabine-based chemoradiation (OXCAP-RT) and carboplatin-paclitaxel based radiation (CarPac-RT) are active regimens in oesophageal adenocarcinoma, but no randomised study has compared their efficacy and toxicity. This randomised phase II "pick a winner" trial will identify the optimum regimen to take forward to a future phase III trial against neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, the current standard in the UK. METHODS/DESIGN: Patients with resectable adenocarcinoma of the oesophagus or Siewert Type 1-2 gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ), ≥T3 and/or ≥ N1 are eligible for the study. Following two cycles of induction OXCAP chemotherapy (oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 D1, Cape 625 mg/m(2) D1-21, q 3 wk), patients are randomised 1:1 to OXCAP-RT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m(2) Day 1,15,29; capecitabine 625 mg/m(2) twice daily on days of RT; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks) or CarPac-RT (Carboplatin AUC2 and paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 Day 1,8,15,22,29; RT-45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks). Restaging CT/PET-CT is performed 4-6 weeks after CRT, and a two-phase oesophagectomy with two-field lymphadenectomy is performed six to eight weeks after CRT. The primary end-point is pathological complete response rate (pCR) at resection and will include central review. Secondary endpoints include: recruitment rate, toxicity, 30-day surgical morbidity/mortality, resection margin positivity rate and overall survival (median, 3- and 5-yr OS. 76 patients (38/arm) gives 90% power and one-sided type 1 error of 10% if patients on one novel treatment have a response rate of 35% while the second treatment has a response rate of 15%. A detailed RT Quality Assurance (RTQA) programme includes a detailed RT protocol and guidance document, pre-accrual RT workshop, outlining exercise, and central evaluation of contouring and planning. This trial has been funded by Cancer Research UK (C44694/A14614), sponsored by Velindre NHS Trust and conducted through the Wales Cancer Trials Unit at Cardiff University on behalf of the NCRI Upper GI CSG. DISCUSSION: Following encouraging results from previous trials, there is an interest in neo-adjuvant chemotherapy and CRT containing regimens for treatment of oesophageal adenocarcinoma. NEOSCOPE will first establish the efficacy, safety and feasibility of two different neo-adjuvant CRT regimens prior to a potential phase III trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Eudract No: 2012-000640-10. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829 .

Gemcitabine-based or capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer (SCALOP): a multicentre, randomised, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, chemotherapy is the standard treatment for inoperable, locally advanced, non-metastatic pancreatic cancer. Chemoradiotherapy is also an acceptable treatment option, for which gemcitabine, fluorouracil, or capecitabine can be used as concurrent chemotherapy agents. We aimed to assess the activity, safety, and feasibility of both gemcitabine-based and capecitabine-based chemoradiotherapy after induction chemotherapy for patients with locally advanced pancreatic cancer. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, two-arm, phase 2 trial, patients aged 18 years or older with histologically proven, locally advanced pancreatic cancer (with a tumour diameter of 7 cm or less) were recruited from 28 UK centres between Dec 24, 2009 and Oct 25, 2011. After 12 weeks of induction gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy (three cycles of gemcitabine [1000 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, 15 of a 28-day cycle] and capecitabine [830 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-21 of a 28-day cycle]), patients with stable or responding disease, tumour diameter of 6 cm or less, and WHO performance status 0-1 were randomly assigned to receive a further cycle of gemcitabine and capecitabine chemotherapy followed by either gemcitabine (300 mg/m(2) once per week) or capecitabine (830 mg/m(2) twice daily, Monday to Friday only), both in combination with radiation (50·4 Gy in 28 fractions). Randomisation (1:1) was done via a central computerised system and used stratified minimisation. The primary endpoint was 9-month progression-free survival, analysed by intention to treat including only those patients with valid CT assessments. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 96169987. FINDINGS: 114 patients were registered and 74 were randomly allocated (38 to the gemcitabine group and 36 to the capecitabine group). After 9 months, 22 of 35 assessable patients (62·9%, 80% CI 50·6-73·9) in the capecitabine group and 18 of 35 assessable patients (51·4%, 39·4-63·4) in the gemcitabine group had not progressed. Median overall survival was 15·2 months (95% CI 13·9-19·2) in the capecitabine group and 13·4 months (95% CI 11·0-15·7) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·39, 95% CI 0·18-0·81; p=0·012). 12-month overall survival was 79·2% (95% CI 61·1-89·5) in the capecitabine group and 64·2 (95% CI 46·4-77·5) in the gemcitabine group. Median progression-free survival was 12·0 months (95% CI 10·2-14·6) in the capecitabine group and 10·4 months (95% CI 8·9-12·5) in the gemcitabine group (adjusted HR 0·60, 95% CI 0·32-1·12; p=0·11). Eight patients in the capecitabine group had an objective response at 26 weeks, as did seven in the gemcitabine group. More patients in the gemcitabine group than in the capecitabine group had grade 3-4 haematological toxic effects (seven [18%] vs none, p=0·008) and non-haematological toxic effects (ten [26%] vs four [12%], p=0·12) during chemoradiation treatment; the most frequent events were leucopenia, neutropenia, and fatigue. Two patients in the capecitabine group progressed during the fourth cycle of induction chemotherapy. Of the 34 patients in the capecitabine group who received chemoradiotherapy, 25 (74%) received the full protocol dose of radiotherapy, compared with 26 (68%) of 38 patients in the gemcitabine group. Quality-of-life scores were not significantly different between the treatment groups. INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that a capecitabine-based regimen might be preferable to a gemcitabine-based regimen in the context of consolidation chemoradiotherapy after a course of induction chemotherapy for locally advanced pancreatic cancer. However, these findings should be interpreted with caution because the difference in the primary endpoint was non-significant and the number of patients in the trial was small. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Time to level up treatment for less survivable cancers.

Dramatic regional variations in outcomes for patients with less survivable cancer (lung, pancreatic, brain, oesophageal and gastric) have been highlighted in a report published by MSD. This editorial examines this report and considers the implications for UK cancer strategy.

Conformal 3D computed tomography planned endoluminal brachytherapy for the local control of esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To outline the toxicity, tolerability, and efficacy of a 3D conformal computed tomography planned endoluminal brachytherapy (ELBT) treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective single-center analysis of toxicity, tolerability, and outcomes for 65 consecutive patients with OAC/OSCC who received 6-8Gy in one fraction or 12-16Gy in two fractions of high-dose-rate ELBT as salvage postchemoradiotherapy (n = 7 and n = 14 respectively), or as a boost to external beam radiotherapy (n = 14 and n = 30, respectively). RESULTS: Median overall survival from the first brachytherapy application was 7.4 (IQR 5.0-14.7) months for the boost cohort and 9.2 (IQR 5.8-20.1) months for the salvage cohort. In a univariate analysis, use of a higher, fractionated dose of radiotherapy was associated with longer overall survival. At least one-third (33%; n = 7) of the salvage cohort and 28% (n = 12) of the boost cohort exhibited a local recurrence prior to death. Overall, 66.7% of the salvage and 56.8% of the boost cohort experienced odynophagia. Swallow function stabilized or improved early after treatment, with only 11.6% of the boost and 14.3% of the salvage cohort demonstrating a long-term decline in dysphagia score. CONCLUSIONS: 3D conformal planned ELBT is safe and tolerable. Most patients exhibit an early and sustained stabilization or improvement in their swallow function and greater survival is seen with higher brachytherapy doses. Further research is required to determine the place of brachytherapy in the management of esophageal cancer, particularly when planned using contemporary conformal approaches.

Low muscle mass measured at T12 is a prognostic biomarker in unresectable oesophageal cancers receiving chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Low muscle mass is an imaging biomarker of patient frailty that has been associated with increased toxicity and decreased survival in a number of cancers. Patients with unresectable oesophageal cancer receive chemoradiotherapy as standard of care. Muscle mass is not yet an established prognostic marker in this population. Muscle mass is usually assessed by segmenting skeletal muscle at the L3 vertebral level. But radiotherapy planning scans for oesophageal cancers do not always image this level, which has limited previous studies of body composition. Skeletal muscle is known to regulate immune function, but the association of muscle mass with lymphopenia in cancer patients has not been shown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyse 135 oesophageal cancer patients who received chemoradiotherapy and investigate the prognostic value of skeletal muscle area assessed at T12. We also examine the association between muscle mass and radiation-induced lymphopenia. RESULTS: We find that low muscle mass is associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.53-0.97]). However, this effect interacts with body mass index (BMI) such that the prognostic value of low muscle mass is removed by high BMI. In our study, patients with low muscle mass were more prone to radiation-induced lymphopenia (75% vs. 50% in patients with high muscle mass). A significant decrease in circulating lymphocytes was associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.68 [0.47-0.99]). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that assessing muscle mass at T12 is feasible and provides prognostic information. Low muscle mass at T12 is associated with poorer overall survival and increased risk of radiation-induced lymphopenia. Muscle mass provides additional information over performance status and BMI. Low BMI patients are most affected by low muscle mass, highlighting the importance of close nutritional support in this population.

Normo- or Hypo-Fractionated Photon or Proton Radiotherapy in the Management of Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.

LAPC is associated with a poor prognosis and requires a multimodal treatment approach. However, the role of radiation therapy in LAPC treatment remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to explore the role of proton and photon therapy, with varying radiation techniques and fractionation, in treatment outcomes and their respective toxicity profiles. METHODS: Clinical studies published from 2012 to 2022 were systematically reviewed using PubMed, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane databases. Different radiotherapy-related data were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies matched the inclusion criteria. Acute toxicity was less remarkable in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT), while in proton beam therapy (PBT) grade 3 or higher acute toxicity was observed more commonly with doses of 67.5 Gy (RBE) or higher. Late toxicity was not reported in most studies; therefore, comparison between groups was not possible. The range of median overall survival (OS) for the CFRT and SBRT groups was 9.3-22.9 months and 8.5-20 months, respectively. For the PBT group, the range of median OS was 18.4-22.3 months. CONCLUSION: CFRT and SBRT showed comparable survival outcomes with a more favorable acute toxicity profile for SBRT. PBT is a promising new treatment modality; however, additional clinical studies are needed to support its efficacy and safety.

Efficacy of early PET-CT directed switch to carboplatin and paclitaxel based definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer who have a poor early response to induction cisplatin and capecitabine in the UK: a multi-centre randomised controlled phase II trial.

Background: The utility of early metabolic response assessment to guide selection of the systemic component of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer is uncertain. Methods: In this multi-centre, randomised, open-label, phase II substudy of the radiotherapy dose-escalation SCOPE2 trial we evaluated the role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) at day 14 of cycle 1 of three-weekly induction cis/cap (cisplatin (60 mg/m2)/capecitabine (625 mg/m2 days 1-21)) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC). Non-responders, who had a less than 35% reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from pre-treatment baseline, were randomly assigned to continue cis/cap or switch to car/pac (carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) for a further induction cycle, then concurrently with radiotherapy over 25 fractions. Responders continued cis/cap for the duration of treatment. All patients (including responders) were randomised to standard (50Gy) or high (60Gy) dose radiation as part of the main study. Primary endpoint for the substudy was treatment failure-free survival (TFFS) at week 24. The trial was registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 97125464 and ClinicalTrials.govNCT02741856. Findings: This substudy was closed on 1st August 2021 by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on the grounds of futility and possible harm. To this point from 22nd November 2016, 103 patients from 16 UK centres had participated in the PET-CT substudy; 63 (61.2%; 52/83 OSCC, 11/20 OAC) of whom were non-responders. Of these, 31 were randomised to car/pac and 32 to remain on cis/cap. All patients were followed up until at least 24 weeks, at which point in OSCC both TFFS (25/27 (92.6%) vs 17/25 (68%); p = 0.028) and overall survival (42.5 vs. 20.4 months, adjusted HR 0.36; p = 0.018) favoured cis/cap over car/pac. There was a trend towards worse survival in OSCC + OAC cis/cap responders (33.6 months; 95%CI 23.1-nr) vs. non-responders (42.5 (95%CI 27.0-nr) months; HR = 1.43; 95%CI 0.67-3.08; p = 0.35). Interpretation: In OSCC, early metabolic response assessment is not prognostic for TFFS or overall survival and should not be used to personalise systemic therapy in patients receiving dCRT. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century.

The utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of liver metastasis has been widely studied and has demonstrated favorable local control outcomes. However, several predictive factors play a crucial role in the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy, such as the number and size (volume) of metastatic liver lesions, the primary tumor site (histology), molecular biomarkers (e.g., KRAS and TP53 mutation), the use of systemic therapy prior to SBRT, the radiation dose, and the use of advanced technology and organ motion management during SBRT. These prognostic factors need to be considered when clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy of SBRT for liver metastases.

Challenges facing cancer care and guidance on prioritising its safe delivery: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the NHS to make rapid adjustments to practice to ensure that patients could continue to access vital treatments while reducing the risk of infection. A roundtable discussion was convened, including professionals from cancer care delivery and those working in patient involvement, to discuss experiences during the pandemic and to offer recommendations for the safe transition and implementation of cancer care in the community setting.

Clinical challenges associated with utility of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an increasingly common cancer with a persistently poor prognosis, and only approximately 20% of patients are clearly anatomically resectable at diagnosis. Historically, a paucity of effective therapy made it inappropriate to forego the traditional gold standard of upfront surgery in favour of neoadjuvant treatment; however, modern combination chemotherapy regimens have made neoadjuvant therapy increasingly viable. As its use has expanded, the rationale for neoadjuvant therapy has evolved from one of 'downstaging' to one of early treatment of micro-metastases and selection of patients with favourable tumour biology for resection. Defining resectability in PDAC is problematic; multiple differing definitions exist. Multidisciplinary input, both in initial assessment of resectability and in supervision of multimodality therapy, is therefore advised. European and North American guidelines recommend the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable (BR)-PDAC. Similar regimens may be applied in locally advanced (LA)-PDAC with the aim of improving potential access to curative-intent resection, but appropriate patient selection is key due to significant rates of recurrence after excision of LA disease. Upfront surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy remain standard-of-care in clearly resectable PDAC, but multiple trials evaluating the use of neoadjuvant therapy in this and other localised settings are ongoing.

Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: Results from eight European centres.

PURPOSE: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.