Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) burden of care study: Analysis of local treatments for lung metastases and systemic chemotherapy in 220 patients in the PulMiCC cohort.

AIM: The aim of this work was to examine the burden of further treatments in patients with colorectal cancer following a decision about lung metastasectomy. METHOD: Five teams participating in the Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) study provided details on subsequent local treatments for lung metastases, including the use of chemotherapy. For patients in three groups (no metastasectomy, one metastasectomy or multiple local interventions), baseline factors and selection criteria for additional treatments were examined. RESULTS: The five teams recruited 220 patients between October 2010 and January 2017. No lung metastasectomy was performed in 51 patients, 114 patients had one metastasectomy and 55 patients had multiple local interventions. Selection for initial metastasectomy was associated with nonelevated carcinoembryonic antigen, fewer metastases and no prior liver metastasectomy. These patients also had better Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scores and lung function at baseline. Four sites provided information on chemotherapy in 139 patients: 79 (57%) had one to five courses of chemotherapy, to a total of 179 courses. The patterns of survival after one or multiple metastasectomy interventions showed evidence of guarantee-time bias contributing to an impression of benefit over no metastasectomy. After repeated metastasectomy, a significantly higher risk of death was observed, with no apparent reduction in chemotherapy usage. CONCLUSION: Repeated metastasectomy is associated with a higher risk of death without reducing the use of chemotherapy. Continued monitoring without surgery might reassure patients with indolent disease or allow response assessment during systemic treatment. Overall, the carefully collected information from the PulMICC study provides no indication of an important survival benefit from metastasectomy.

The Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer cohort study: Analysis of case selection, risk factors and survival in a prospective observational study of 512 patients.

AIM: We wanted to examine survival in patients with resected colorectal cancer (CRC) whose lung metastases are or are not resected. METHODS: Teams participating in the study of Pulmonary Metastasectomy in Colorectal Cancer (PulMiCC) identified potential candidates for lung metastasectomy and invited their consent to join Stage 1. Baseline data related to CRC and fitness for surgery were collected. Eligible patients were invited to consent for randomization in the PulMiCC randomized controlled trial (Stage 2). Sites were provided with case report forms for non-randomized patients to record adverse events and death at any time. They were all reviewed at 1 year. Baseline and survival data were analysed for the full cohort. RESULTS: Twenty-five clinical sites recruited 512 patients from October 2010 to January 2017. Data collection closed in October 2020. Before analysis, 28 patients with non-CRC lung lesions were excluded and three had withdrawn consent leaving 481. The date of death was known for 292 patients, 136 were alive in 2020 and 53 at earlier time points. Baseline factors and 5-year survival were analysed in three strata: 128 non-randomized patients did not have metastasectomy; 263 had elective metastasectomy; 90 were from the randomized trial. The proportions of solitary metastases for electively operated and non-operated patients were 69% and 35%. Their respective 5-year survivals were 47% and 22%. CONCLUSION: Survival without metastasectomy was greater than widely presumed. Difference in survival appeared to be largely related to selection. No inference can be drawn about the effect of metastasectomy on survival in this observational study.

Carboplatin versus two doses of cisplatin in combination with gemcitabine in the treatment of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: Results from a British Thoracic Oncology Group randomised phase III trial.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based combination chemotherapy is standard treatment for the majority of patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The trial investigates the importance of the choice of platinum agent and dose of cisplatin in relation to patient outcomes. METHODS: The three-arm randomised phase III trial assigned patients with chemo-naïve stage IIIB/IV NSCLC in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive gemcitabine 1250 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 of a 3-week cycle with cisplatin 80 mg/m2 (GC80) or cisplatin 50 mg/m2 (GC50) or carboplatin AUC6 (GCb6) for a maximum of four cycles. Primary outcome measure was survival time, aiming to test for a difference between treatment arms and also assess non-inferiority with pre-defined margin selected as hazard ratio (HR) of 1.2. Secondary outcome measures included response rate, adverse events and quality of life (QoL). FINDINGS: The trial recruited 1363 patients. Survival time differed significantly across the three treatment arms (p = 0.046) with GC50 worst with median 8.2 months compared to 9.5 for GC80 and 10.0 for GCb6. HRs (adjusted) for GC50 compared to GC80 was 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.99-1.29) and for GC50 compared to GCb6 was 1.23 (95% CI: 1.08-1.41). GCb6 was significantly non-inferior to GC80 (HR = 0.93, upper limit of one-sided 95% CI 1.04). Adjusting for QoL did not change the findings. Best objective response rates were 29% (GC80), 20% (GC50) and 27% (GCb6), p < 0.007. There were more dose reductions and treatment delays in the GCb6 arm and more adverse events (60% with at least one grade 3-4 compared to 43% GC80 and 30% GC50). INTERPRETATION: In combination with gemcitabine, carboplatin at AUC6 is not inferior to cisplatin at 80 mg/m2 in terms of survival. Carboplatin was associated with more adverse events and not with better quality of life. Cisplatin at the lower dose of 50 mg/m2 has worse survival which is not compensated by better quality of life. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT00112710. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2004-003868-30. CANCER RESEARCH UK TRIAL IDENTIFIER: CRUK/04/009.

Exploring ways to manage healthcare professional-patient communication issues.

Effective communication between clinicians and their patients has a positive impact not only on clinical outcomes but also on their experience of care. Communication skills are a core clinical skill, which can be taught by a number of methods. Understanding the impact of one's own communication skills has on a patient and their family can help hone a clinician's skills to improve both patient and clinician satisfaction.

Capecitabine-related liver lesions: sinusoidal dilatation mimicking liver metastasis.

A 30-year-old lady treated with capecitabine for primary colon adenocarcinoma developed liver lesions suspicious for metastasis. Liver biopsies showed sinusoidal dilatation thought to be secondary to capecitabine. This case highlights the importance of differentiating between benign and malignant liver lesions during cancer surveillance preventing unnecessary liver resections for benign disease.

Guidance on the management of diarrhoea during cancer chemotherapy.

Diarrhoea induced by chemotherapy in cancer patients is common, causes notable morbidity and mortality, and is managed inconsistently. Previous management guidelines were based on poor evidence and neglect physiological causes of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea. In the absence of level 1 evidence from randomised controlled trials, we developed practical guidance for clinicians based on a literature review by a multidisciplinary team of clinical oncologists, dietitians, gastroenterologists, medical oncologists, nurses, pharmacist, and a surgeon. Education of patients and their carers about the risks associated with, and management of, chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea is the foundation for optimum treatment of toxic effects. Adequate--and, if necessary, repeated--assessment, appropriate use of loperamide, and knowledge of fluid resuscitation requirements of affected patients is the second crucial step. Use of octreotide and seeking specialist advice early for patients who do not respond to treatment will reduce morbidity and mortality. In view of the burden of chemotherapy-induced diarrhoea, appropriate multidisciplinary research to assess meaningful endpoints is urgently required.

Towards saving a million bed days: reducing length of stay through an acute oncology model of care for inpatients diagnosed as having cancer.

PROBLEM: The need to develop a patient pathway for emergency admissions who have a previously undiagnosed cancer. DESIGN: The existing patient pathway was audited and process-mapped to identify delays and areas for improvement. Discussions with key stakeholders were held to identify their needs from an acute oncology service. STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE: A new patient pathway was developed, and a new online referral process was implemented. The publicity and education campaign was repeatedly aimed at referring physicians at consultant and junior level, and took the form of emails and presentations with handouts at all teaching sessions, multidisciplinary team meetings, the Consultants Committee and Junior Doctors' induction. Effects of change The new system was piloted for 6 months. 12/18 patients were referred via the new pathway. 15/18 patients were referred via the new online system. Length of stay, endoscopies, biopsies and blood tests were all statistically significantly reduced during the study period compared with the original audit. LESSONS LEARNT: The challenge was to convince the referring general physicians to use the new patient pathway and referral method. Incorporating their ideas for improvement and implementation made it more likely that they would take up the new ideas. Education and publicity were also extensive, often repeated, and at both junior and senior level. Having the Lead Cancer Clinician and Acute Medicine Consultant engage directly with consultant colleagues, as well as strong support from the Medical Director, was also crucial to the project's success.

Phase III randomized comparison of gemcitabine versus gemcitabine plus capecitabine in patients with advanced pancreatic cancer.

PURPOSE: Both gemcitabine (GEM) and fluoropyrimidines are valuable treatment for advanced pancreatic cancer. This open-label study was designed to compare the overall survival (OS) of patients randomly assigned to GEM alone or GEM plus capecitabine (GEM-CAP). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with previously untreated histologically or cytologically proven locally advanced or metastatic carcinoma of the pancreas with a performance status

Space and place in the construction and performance of gendered nursing identities.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This paper draws on recent research conducted in two contrasting NHS hospitals: one a large District General, the other a small Community hospital; to look at hospitals as organizational spaces. This includes both the physical environment as well as how these spaces are inhabited and used. This paper aims to explore the ways in which hospital spaces impact on the working lives of nurses. METHODS: The research employed two main methods. Two phases of round the clock non-participant observation were carried out within each hospital, one at the beginning of the research period and one at the end. This generated thick description of the diversity of spaces, as well as individuals' use of space. In addition, more than 50 in-depth unstructured interviews were conducted with both nurses and doctors. FINDINGS: Three aspects of the relationship between nurse and hospital spaces are considered. First, the degree of access that nurses have to the different hospital spaces is limited, and many are confined to the wards in which they work. The high proportion of female nurses working on wards means that there are marked gender differences in access to hospital spaces. There are also marked professional differences when nurses are compared to doctors who have much greater freedom to roam and there are differences in the amount of private space allocated to nurses and doctors. Second, styles of bodily movement in space are also highly differentiated by profession and gender. Third, different spaces have very different meanings attached to them, and this has a strong impact on styles of performance and identity. Attention to space thus offers original insights to nurses working conditions as well as to inter-professional relations.