Impact of prostate radiotherapy on survival outcomes in clinically node-positive prostate cancer: A multicentre retrospective analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate clinical outcomes for cN1M0 prostate cancer treated with varied modalities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Men with radiological stage cN1M0 prostate cancer on conventional imaging, treated from 2011-2019 with various modalities across four centres in the UK were included. Demographics, tumour grade and stage, and treatment details were collected. Biochemical and radiological progression-free survival (bPFS, rPFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan Meier analyses. Potential factors impacting survival were tested with univariable log-rank test and multivariable Cox-proportional hazards model. RESULTS: Total 337 men with cN1M0 prostate cancer were included, 47% having Gleason grade group 5 disease. Treatment modalities included androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in 98.9% men, either alone (19%) or in combinations including prostate radiotherapy (70%), pelvic nodal radiotherapy (38%), docetaxel (22%), or surgery (7%). At median follow up of 50 months, 5-year bPFS, rPFS, and OS were 62.7%, 71.0%, and 75.8% respectively. Prostate radiotherapy was associated with significantly higher bPFS (74.1% vs 34.2%), rPFS (80.7% vs 44.3%) and OS (86.7% vs 56.2%) at five years (log rank p < 0.001 each). On multivariable analysis including age, Gleason grade group, tumour stage, ADT duration, docetaxel, and nodal radiotherapy, benefit of prostate radiotherapy persisted for bPFS [HR 0.33 (95% CI 0.18-0.62)], rPFS [HR 0.25 (0.12-0.51)], and OS [HR 0.27 (0.13-0.58)] (p < 0.001 each). Impact of nodal radiotherapy or docetaxel was not established due to small subgroups. CONCLUSION: Addition of prostate radiotherapy to ADT in cN1M0 prostate cancer yielded improved disease control and overall survival independent of other tumour and treatment factors.

Evaluation of the palliative radiotherapy pathway in a single institute: Can an MR Linac improve efficiency?

BACKGROUND: Palliative radiotherapy (RT) is effectively used to relieve cancer related symptoms. The demand for these services is increasing worldwide. Rapid response clinics have been developed as a means to streamline the palliative RT radiotherapy process and increase efficiency and improve patient experiences. Key components to successful rapid response palliative RT are access to care, streamlined services and innovation. To successfully implement a rapid response RT programme, it is essential to identify gaps between currently provided care and ideal or enhanced care. The aims of this work are to audit the current palliative RT workflow at our institution both prior to and during the coronavirus pandemic. This work reports the impact of covid-19 on rate of palliative RT referrals and proposes a radiographer led, MR guided rapid response workflow to reduce wait times METHODS: A retrospective audit of palliative radiotherapy booking forms was completed over a two yearperiod (2019-2020) to assess the current pathway both prior to and during the covid-19 pandemic. This audit identified patients who had received urgent/emergency spinal RT in the specified timeframe. Further data on these patients was collected using departmental oncology information systems to form a detailed analysis of the pathway and wait times. Data was recorded and analysed using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: A total of 813 patients met the inclusion criteria for this audit. Data was reported for 2019 and 2020 separately to determine any significant impact caused by the covid-19 pandemic. In 2020 there was an 11.5% increase in referrals for palliative radiotherapy with an equal portion (81%) of total referrals in each year being for single fractions. Timelines from referral to treatment delivery were reported, with those patients receiving same day single fraction RT palliative radiotherapy undergoing further analysis to determine the amount of time spent in the department. Mean wait time for these patients was 5 hours and 20 minutes in 2019 but increased by 20.9% in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The increasing demand for palliative RT due to rising global cancer rates and extended life expectancy due to advanced systemic treatments may lead to increased wait times. An increase in both referrals and mean wait time was seen during the covid-19 pandemic. Improving efficiency and access to care is essential for this population. The MR Linac could play a role in streamlining palliative RT workflows due to its ability to employ a scan, plan and treat model in a single session. This work forms preliminary support for the development of a trial one stop palliative program on the MR Linac.

A randomised controlled trial of warfarin versus aspirin for stroke prevention in octogenarians with atrial fibrillation (WASPO).

BACKGROUND: atrial fibrillation (AF) is the commonest chronic arrhythmia with a prevalence of 9% in octogenarians and accounts for 24% of the stroke risk in this population. Although trials demonstrate reductions in stroke with warfarin, audit data show that it is still underused. However, anti-coagulation in the very elderly is not without risk. METHODS: randomised open labelled prospective study of primary thromboprophylaxis for AF. Patients aged >80 and <90 were randomised to receive dose-adjusted warfarin (INR 2.0-3.0) or aspirin 300 mg. All patients had permanent AF, were ambulant, had Folstein mini mental score >25 and had no contraindications to either treatment. Follow-up was for 1 year with 3 monthly visits. The primary outcome measure was a comparative frequency of combined endpoints comprising death, thromboembolism, serious bleeding and withdrawal from the study. RESULTS: seventy-five patients (aspirin 39; warfarin 36) were entered (mean age 83.9, 47% male). There were significantly more adverse events with aspirin (13/39; 33%) than warfarin (2/36; 6%), P = 0.002. 10/13 aspirin adverse events were caused by side effects and serious bleeding; there were three deaths (two aspirin, one warfarin). CONCLUSION: dose-adjusted warfarin was significantly better tolerated with fewer adverse events than aspirin 300 mg in this elderly population. Although aspirin 75 mg may have been better tolerated, there is no evidence for efficacy in AF at this dose.