Do clinical trials change practice? A longitudinal, international assessment of colorectal cancer prescribing practices.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of the 1.5 million individuals globally who are diagnosed with colorectal cancer (CRC) present with stage II-III disease. Understanding clinician attitudes towards treatment for this group is paramount to contextualise real-world outcomes and plan future trials. The aim of this study was to assess clinician awareness of trials assessing the optimal duration of CRC adjuvant therapy, their attitudes towards shorter treatment and their self-reported practice. METHODS: A survey was developed using OnlineSurveys® and distributed to clinicians in April 2019, with a follow-up survey disseminated to a subset of respondents in August 2020. Microsoft Excel® and Stata® were used for analysis. RESULTS: 265 clinicians replied to the first survey, with the majority aware of findings from the International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Therapy collaboration and contributory trials. Practice change was greatest for patients under 70 with low-risk stage III CRC, with most uncertainty around using 3-months of doublet chemotherapy for high-risk stage II disease. In August 2020, clinicians (n = 106) were more likely to use 3-months of FOLFOX for low-risk stage III disease and 3-months of CAPOX for stage II disease compared to April 2019. There was no indication that the COVID-19 pandemic had enduring changes on treatment decisions beyond those made in response to trial evidence. DISCUSSION: Clinicians use a risk-stratified approach to treat CRC the adjuvant setting. Lower utilisation of doublet chemotherapy for older and stage II patients has affected the extent of trial implementation. Active dialogue regarding how trial results apply to these groups may improve consensus.

Blind and partially sighted physiotherapy in the United Kingdom. A century of development, success and challenge. Will it still belong?

Background:In 2019 the Association of Visually Impaired Chartered Physiotherapists, originally the Association of Blind Certificated Masseurs, celebrated the centenary of its formation and becoming the first ever Specific Interest Group admitted to the Incorporated Society of Trained Masseuses which, later in the 20th century, became the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. These landmarks motivated the author to research for this chronological, descriptive, narrative review of the history of blind physiotherapy and its contribution to physiotherapy in the United Kingdom. Purpose:The early training and practice of massage by blind practitioners, the organizational milestones in mainstream and blind physiotherapy and the inter-relationship between the two is considered. Key developments, challenges, innovations and opportunities throughout the history are reviewed including the impact of World War 1 and contribution of blind physiotherapy to the profession. Conclusion:Significant changes in physiotherapy educational and training arrangements for blind students and changes in physiotherapy practice generally over the last four decades engender serious questions about whether blind physiotherapy will still "belong", despite the increasing aspiration within society toward acceptance of diversity and inclusion. The author challenges the profession about whether it will facilitate blind physiotherapy to continue making its valuable contribution and be included. Will it still "belong?"

Sorafenib dose escalation in treatment-naïve patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of sorafenib dose escalation in metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Intra-patient dose escalation may enhance the clinical benefit of targeted anticancer agents in metastatic disease. In this non-randomised, open-label, Phase 2b study, treatment-naïve patients with mRCC were initially treated with the standard oral sorafenib dose [400 mg twice daily (BID)]. Two dose escalations were planned, each 200 mg BID after 28 days at the prior level. Dose reductions, interruptions, or delayed escalations were used to manage adverse events (AEs). The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR) in the modified intent-to-treat (mITT) population, which comprised patients with ≥6 months of treatment including ≥4 months of therapy at their highest tolerated dose. Secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. RESULTS: In all, 83 patients received sorafenib. The dose received for the longest duration was 400, 600, and 800 mg BID in 48.2%, 15.7%, and 24.1% of patients, respectively. The ORR was 44.4% [n = 8/18; 95% confidence interval (CI) 21.5-69.2] and 17.9% (n = 12/67; 95% CI 9.6-29.2) in the mITT and ITT populations, respectively. The median (95% CI) PFS was 7.4 (6.0-11.7) months (ITT). The most common AEs of any grade were hand-foot skin reaction (66.3%) and diarrhoea (63.9%). CONCLUSION: Sorafenib demonstrated clinical benefit in treatment-naïve patients with mRCC. However, relatively few patients could sustain doses of >400 mg BID. There was evidence that, where tolerated, escalation from the standard sorafenib dose may have enhanced clinical benefit. However, this study does not support dose escalation for most patients with treatment-naïve mRCC. Alternative protocols for sorafenib dose escalation could be explored.