[18F]-fluoroethyl-L-tyrosine (FET) in glioblastoma (FIG) TROG 18.06 study: protocol for a prospective, multicentre PET/CT trial.

INTRODUCTION: Glioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145.

The Effects of Multimodal Prehabilitation Interventions in Men Affected by Prostate Cancer on Physical, Clinical and Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesize existing evidence on the effects of multimodal prehabilitation interventions in men affected by prostate cancer on physical, clinical, and patient-reported outcome measures. DATA SOURCES: A systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA 2020 Statement Guidelines. Electronic databases (ie, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL, and clinicaltrials.gov) were searched using key search terms. Articles were assessed according to prespecified eligibility criteria. Data extraction and quality appraisal was conducted. The findings were integrated in a narrative synthesis. CONCLUSION: Of the 5863 publications screened, 118 articles were assessed in full text and 17 studies met the prescreening eligibility criteria. There were a range of study designs that included randomized controlled clinical trials (n = 11), quasi experimental (n = 4), cohort (n = 1), and case series (n = 1), covering a total of 1739 participants. The prehabilitation interventions included physical activity, peer support, pelvic floor muscle training, diet, nurse-led prehabilitation, psychological, and prehabilitation administration of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Significant heterogeneity existed in the prehabilitation intervention programs for men affected by prostate cancer in terms of the composition, duration, method of administration, and the outcomes measured to quantify their impact. This systematic review has identified that multimodal prehabilitation interventions are an emerging area for practice and research among men affected by prostate cancer. Importantly, there has been a lack of focus on the inclusion of partners as critical companions during this distressing phase of the cancer care continuum. For the moment, all members of the multidisciplinary team caring for people affected by prostate cancer are encouraged to use the findings in this review to inform holistic models of care.

Best Evidence to Best Practice: Implementing an Innovative Model of Nutrition Care for Patients with Head and Neck Cancer Improves Outcomes.

Malnutrition is prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), impacting outcomes. Despite publication of nutrition care evidence-based guidelines (EBGs), evidence-practice gaps exist. This study aimed to implement and evaluate the integration of a patient-centred, best-practice dietetic model of care into an HNC multidisciplinary team (MDT) to minimise the detrimental sequelae of malnutrition. A mixed-methods, pre-post study design was used to deliver key interventions underpinned by evidence-based implementation strategies to address identified barriers and facilitators to change at individual, team and system levels. A data audit of medical records established baseline adherence to EBGs and clinical parameters prior to implementation in a prospective cohort. Key interventions included a weekly Supportive Care-Led Pre-Treatment Clinic and a Nutrition Care Dashboard highlighting nutrition outcome data integrated into MDT meetings. Focus groups provided team-level evaluation of the new model of care. Economic analysis determined system-level impact. The baseline clinical audit (n = 98) revealed barriers including reactive nutrition care, lack of familiarity with EBGs or awareness of intensive nutrition care needs as well as infrastructure and dietetic resource limitations. Post-implementation data (n = 34) demonstrated improved process and clinical outcomes: pre-treatment dietitian assessment; use of a validated nutrition assessment tool before, during and after treatment. Patients receiving the new model of care were significantly more likely to complete prescribed radiotherapy and systemic therapy. Differences in mean percentage weight change were clinically relevant. At the system level, the new model of care avoided 3.92 unplanned admissions and related costs of $AUD121K per annum. Focus groups confirmed clear support at the multidisciplinary team level for continuing the new model of care. Implementing an evidence-based nutrition model of care in patients with HNC is feasible and can improve outcomes. Benefits of this model of care may be transferrable to other patient groups within cancer settings.

SCORE: Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient's primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency. METHODS/DESIGN: SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs. DISCUSSION: The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p . Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

Quality of life related to oral versus subcutaneous iron chelation: a time trade-off study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility associated with subcutaneous infusion (deferoxamine) compared with once-daily oral administration (deferasirox) of iron chelation therapy. METHODS: Interviews using the time trade-off technique were used to estimate preferences (utility) for health states by finding the point at which respondents were indifferent between a longer but lower quality of life (QoL) and a shorter time in full health. Participants (n = 110) were community-based, 51% women, median age 35 years, from four regions in Sydney, Australia. Respondents rated three health states involving equal outcomes for people with thalassemia but with different treatment modalities for iron chelation; an "anchor state" describing a patient receiving iron chelation without administration mode specified, anchor state plus iron chelation via subcutaneous infusion, and anchor state plus iron chelation through once-daily oral medication. RESULTS: On an interval scale between 0 (death) and 1 (full health), median (interquartile range) utility of 0.80 (0.65-0.95) for the anchor state, 0.66 (0.45-0.87) for subcutaneous infusion, and 0.93 (0.80-0.97) for once-daily oral administration was obtained. The mean (median) difference of 0.23 (0.27) between the two treatments was statistically significant (Wilcoxon-signed rank test, P < 0.001). Subcutaneous infusion was associated with a mean (median) utility 0.13 (0.14) lower than the anchor state (P < 0.001), and once-daily oral treatment had a utility 0.10 (0.13) higher (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Community respondents associate oral administration of an iron chelator such as deferasirox with enhanced QoL compared with subcutaneous treatment. Assuming equal safety and efficacy, QoL gains from once-daily oral treatment compared with subcutaneous infusion are significant.