The tumor core boost study: A feasibility study of radical dose escalation to the central part of large tumors with an integrated boost in the palliative treatment setting.

PURPOSE: For patients with large tumors palliative radiotherapy often is the only local treatment option. To prevent toxicity the administered doses are low. Dose escalation to the tumor could be an option to better smyptom control and prolong local control rates. In this prospective study we used a very pragmatic approach with a simultaneously integrated boost (SIB) to an almost geometrically defined tumor core to achieve this. The primary endpoint was to demonstrate feasibility. METHOD: Patients with solid tumors > 4 cm in diameter of different histologies were eligible in this single arm, prospective, multi-institutional clinical feasibility trial with two treatment concepts: 5â€¯× 5 Gy with an integrated boost to the tumor core of 5â€¯× 10 Gy or 10â€¯× 3 Gy with a boost of 10â€¯× 6 Gy. The objective of dose escalation in this study was to deliver a minimum dose of 150% of the prescribed dose to the gross tumor volume (GTV) tumor core and to reach a maximum of at least 200% in the tumor core. RESULTS: In all, 21 patients at three study sites were recruited between January 2019 and November 2020 and were almost evenly spread (9 to 12) between the two concepts. The treated planning target volumes (PTV) averaged 389.42 cm3 (range 49.4-1179.6 cm3). The corresponding core volumes were 72.85 cm3 on average (range 4.21-338.3 cm3). Dose escalation to the tumor core with mean doses of 167.7-207.7% related to the nonboost prescribed isodose led to PTV mean doses of 120.5-163.3%. Treatment delivery and short-term follow-up was successful in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative radiotherapy with SIB to the tumor core seems to be a feasible and well-tolerated treatment concept for large tumors. The applied high doses of up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions (or 60 Gy in 10 fractions) did not cause unexpected side effects in the 42 day follow-up period. Further research is needed for more information on efficacy and long-term toxicity.

Satisfaction with radiotherapy care among cancer patients treated in Germany-secondary analysis of a large multicenter study.

PURPOSE: Patient satisfaction with healthcare has been linked to clinical outcomes and regulatory agencies demand its regular assessment. Therefore, we aimed to investigate patient satisfaction with radiotherapy care and its determinants. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cancer patients anonymously completed questionnaires at the end of a course of radiotherapy. The outcome variable was overall patient satisfaction with radiotherapy care measured with a 10-point Likert scaled single-item. Given patient satisfaction was defined for patients scoring ≥ 8 points. Determinants of given patient satisfaction were assessed by univariable and multivariable analyses. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of 2341 eligible patients, 1075 participated (participation rate 46%). Data on patient satisfaction was provided by 1054 patients. There was a right-skewed distribution towards more patient satisfaction (mean = 8.8; SD = 1.68). Given patient satisfaction was reported by 85% (899/1054) of the patients. Univariable analyses revealed significant associations of lower patient satisfaction with tumor entity (rectal cancer), concomitant chemotherapy, inpatient care, treating center, lower income, higher costs, and lower quality of life. Rectal cancer as tumor entity, treating center, and higher quality of life remained significant determinants of patient satisfaction in a multivariable logistic regression. CONCLUSION: Overall patient satisfaction with radiotherapy care was high across 11 centers in Germany. Determinants of patient satisfaction were tumor entity, treating center, and quality of life. Although these data are exploratory, they may inform other centers and future efforts to maintain high levels of patient satisfaction with radiotherapy care.

Financial toxicity in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in Germany-a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Financial toxicity arises in cancer patients from subjective financial distress due to objective financial burden from the disease or treatment. Financial toxicity associates with worse outcomes. It has not been described in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in Germany and its publicly funded health system. In this context, we therefore investigated the prevalence of financial toxicity, associated risk factors, and patient preferences on communication of financial burden. METHODS: We conducted a preregistered ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/KH6VX ) cross-sectional study surveying patients at the end of their course of radiotherapy in two institutions. Objective financial burden was assessed by direct costs and loss of income. Financial toxicity was measured by subjective financial distress per EORTC QLQ-C30. We used Spearman's correlation and Fisher's exact test for univariate analysis, an ordinal regression for multivariate analysis. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients participating in the study, 68% reported direct costs, 25% loss of income, and 31% subjective financial distress. Per univariate analysis, higher subjective financial distress was significantly associated with active employment, lower quality of life, lower household income, higher direct costs, and higher loss of income. The latter three factors remained statistically significant in the multivariate analysis. A relative majority of the patients welcomed communication regarding financial burden with their radiation oncologist. CONCLUSION: Financial toxicity is prevalent in cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in Germany. The reported risk factors may help to identify patients at risk. Future studies should validate these results and investigate interventions for financial toxicity to potentially improve outcomes.

Developmental hemostasis: A lifespan from neonates and pregnancy to the young and elderly adult in a European white population.

Absolute values of reference ranges for coagulation assays in humans vary within the entire lifespan and confirm the concept of developmental hemostasis. It is known that physiologic concentrations of coagulation factors (F) gradually increase over age: they are lower in premature infants as compared to full-term babies, healthy children or adults. Here we demonstrate in a cohort of 1011 blood donors and in a group of 193 healthy pregnant women, that the process of developmental hemostasis proceeds in adults. During the course of pregnancy F and activation markers steadily increase until delivery with a parallel decrease noticed for protein S. From adolescents, young adults to the elderly there is a further increase of F, reaching significance starting between 35 and 50years of age compared to younger subjects. Covering the entire lifespan FVIII and von-Willebrand-factor showed the lowest values in carriers of blood group "O". Apart from pregnancy differences related to gender, pill users, smoking habits or the presence of thrombophilic variants were reported. Laboratory test results should be compared to age-related reference intervals when hemostatic defects are suspected to avoid misclassifications as being "healthy", prone to "bleeding" or vice versa to "thrombosis".

Patient-Relevant Costs for Organ Preservation versus Radical Resection in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer.

Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is an evolving treatment schedule for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), allowing for organ preservation in a relevant number of patients in the case of complete response. Patients who undergo this so-called "watch and wait" approach are likely to benefit regarding their quality of life (QoL), especially if definitive ostomy could be avoided. In this work, we performed the first cost-effectiveness analysis from the patient perspective to compare costs for TNT with radical resection after neoadjuvant chemoradiation (CRT) in the German health care system. Individual costs for patients insured with a statutory health insurance were calculated with a Markov microsimulation. A subgroup analysis from the prospective "FinTox" trial was used to calibrate the model's parameters. We found that TNT was less expensive (-1540 EUR) and simultaneously resulted in a better QoL (+0.64 QALYs) during treatment and 5-year follow-up. The average cost for patients under TNT was 4711 EUR per year, which was equivalent to 3.2% of the net household income. CRT followed by resection resulted in higher overall costs for ostomy care, medication and greater loss of earnings. Overall, TNT appeared to be more efficacious and cost-effective from a patient's point of view in the German health care system.

A Multicenter Evaluation of Different Chemotherapy Regimens in Older Adults With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Definitive Chemoradiation.

PURPOSE: The number of older adults with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is increasing, and treatment of these patients is challenging. Although cisplatin-based chemotherapy concomitantly with radiation therapy is considered the standard regimen for patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC, there is substantial real-world heterogeneity regarding concomitant chemotherapy in older patients with HNSCC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The SENIOR study is an international multicenter cohort study including older patients (≥65 years) with HNSCC treated with definitive radiation therapy at 13 academic centers in the United States and Europe. Patients with concomitant chemoradiation were analyzed regarding overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) via Kaplan-Meier analyses. Fine-Gray competing risk regressions were performed regarding the incidence of locoregional failures and distant metastases. RESULTS: Six hundred ninety-seven patients with a median age of 71 years were included in this analysis. Single-agent cisplatin was the most common chemotherapy regimen (n = 310; 44%), followed by cisplatin plus 5-fluorouracil (n = 137; 20%), carboplatin (n = 73; 10%), and mitomycin C plus 5-fluorouracil (n = 64; 9%). Carboplatin-based regimens were associated with diminished PFS (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39 [1.03-1.89]; P < .05) and a higher incidence of locoregional failures (subdistribution HR, 1.54 [1.00-2.38]; P = .05) compared with single-agent cisplatin, whereas OS (HR, 1.15 [0.80-1.65]; P = .46) was comparable. There were no oncological differences between single-agent and multiagent cisplatin regimens (all P > .05). The median cumulative dose of cisplatin was 180 mg/m2 (IQR, 120-200 mg/m2). Cumulative cisplatin doses ≥200 mg/m2 were associated with increased OS (HR, 0.71 [0.53-0.95]; P = .02), increased PFS (HR, 0.66 [0.51-0.87]; P = .003), and lower incidence of locoregional failures (subdistribution HR, 0.50 [0.31-0.80]; P = .004). Higher cumulative cisplatin doses remained an independent prognostic variable in the multivariate regression analysis for OS (HR, 0.996 [0.993-0.999]; P = .009). CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent cisplatin can be considered in the standard chemotherapy regimen for older patients with HNSCC who can tolerate cisplatin. Cumulative cisplatin doses are prognostically relevant in older patients with HNSCC.

The impact of palliative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life in patients with head and neck cancer - Results of a multicenter prospective cohort study.

Purpose: Palliative radiotherapy for patients with head and neck cancer can be used to alleviate symptoms. Only a few studies have investigated its impact on patient-reported outcomes (PRO). Therefore, we conducted a prospective multicenter observational study. The primary objective was to assess changes in health-related quality of life (HrQoL) per PRO. Methods: Eligibility criteria included i.) head and neck cancer and ii.) palliative radiotherapy indicated (EQD2Gy < 60 Gy). The primary follow-up date was eight weeks after radiotherapy (t8w). PRO measures included the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-H&N43 and pain per Numeric Rating Scale (NRS). Per protocol, five PRO domains were to be reported in detail as well as PRO domains corresponding to a primary and secondary symptom as determined by the individual patient. We defined a minimal important difference (MID) of 10 points. Results: From 06/2020 to 06/2022, 61 patients were screened and 21 patients were included. Due to death or decline in health-status, HrQoL data was available for 18 patients at the first fraction and for eight patients at t8w. The MID was not met for the predefined domains in terms of mean values as compared from first fraction to t8w. Individually in those patients with available HrQoL data at t8w, 71% (5/7) improved in their primary and 40% (2/5) in their secondary symptom domain reaching the MID from first fraction to t8w, respectively. There was a significant improvement in pain per NRS in those patients with available data at t8w per Wilcoxon signed rank test (p = 0.041). Acute mucositis of grade ≥3 per CTCAE v5.0 occurred in 44% (8/18) of the patients. The median overall survival was 11 months. Conclusion: Despite low patient numbers and risk of selection bias, our study shows some evidence of a benefit from palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer as measured by PRO.German Clinical Trial Registry identifier: DRKS00021197.

Financial toxicity in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in a universal health care system - A prospective multicenter study of 1075 patients.

PURPOSE: To establish and confirm prevalence as well as risk factors of financial toxicity in a large national cohort of cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy in a universal health care system. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study offering a patient-reported questionnaire to all eligible cancer patients treated with radiotherapy in 11 centers in Germany during 60 consecutive days. The four-point subjective financial distress question of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as a surrogate for financial toxicity. Confirmatory hypothesis testing evaluated the primary study outcomes: overall prevalence of financial toxicity and its association with predefined risk factors. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Of 2341 eligible patients, 1075 (46%) participated. The prevalence of subjective financial distress (=any grade higher than not present) was 41% (438/1075) exceeding the hypothesized range of 26.04-36.31%. Subjective financial distress was felt "A little" by 26% (280/1075), "Quite a bit" by 11% (113/1075) and "Very much" by 4% (45/1075) of the patients. Lower household income, lower global health status/ quality of life, higher direct costs and higher loss of income significantly predicted higher subjective financial distress per ordinal regression and confirmed these risk factors. Higher psychosocial distress and lower patient satisfaction were significantly associated with higher subjective financial distress in an exploratory ordinal regression model. CONCLUSION: The overall prevalence of financial toxicity was higher than anticipated, although reported at low or moderate degrees by most affected patients. As we confirmed risk factors associated with financial toxicity, patients at risk should be addressed early for potential support.

Psychosocial distress in cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy: a prospective national cohort of 1042 patients in Germany.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial distress is common among cancer patients in general, but those undergoing radiotherapy may face specific challenges. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and risk factors for distress in a large national cohort. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cross-sectional study which surveyed cancer patients at the end of a course of radiotherapy using a patient-reported questionnaire. Distress was measured with the distress thermometer (DT), using a cut-off of ≥ 5 points for clinically significant distress. Univariate analyses and multivariate multiple regression were used to assess associations of distress with patient characteristics. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Out of 2341 potentially eligible patients, 1075 participated in the study, of which 1042 completed the DT. The median age was 65 years and 49% (511/1042) of patients were female. The mean DT score was 5.2 (SD = 2.6). Clinically significant distress was reported by 63% (766/1042) of patients. Of the patient characteristics that were significantly associated with distress in the univariate analysis, a lower level of education, a higher degree of income loss, lower global quality of life, and a longer duration of radiotherapy in days remained significantly associated with higher distress in the multivariate analysis. Yet effect sizes of these associations were small. CONCLUSION: Nearly two in three cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy reported clinically significant distress in a large multicenter cohort. While screening and interventions to reduce distress should be maintained and promoted, the identified risk factors may help to raise awareness in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRY IDENTIFIER: DRKS: German Clinical Trial Registry identifier: DRKS00028784.

Evaluation of Concomitant Systemic Treatment in Older Adults With Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma Undergoing Definitive Radiotherapy.

Importance: The number of older adults with head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) is increasing, and these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. It is unclear whether the addition of chemotherapy or cetuximab to radiotherapy is associated with improved survival in older adults with HNSCC. Objective: To examine whether the addition of chemotherapy or cetuximab to definitive radiotherapy is associated with improved survival in patients with locoregionally advanced (LA) HNSCC. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Special Care Patterns for Elderly HNSCC Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy (SENIOR) study is an international, multicenter cohort study including older adults (≥65 years) with LA-HNSCCs of the oral cavity, oropharynx/hypopharynx, or larynx treated with definitive radiotherapy, either alone or with concomitant systemic treatment, between January 2005 and December 2019 at 12 academic centers in the US and Europe. Data analysis was conducted from June 4 to August 10, 2022. Interventions: All patients underwent definitive radiotherapy alone or with concomitant systemic treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was overall survival. Secondary outcomes included progression-free survival and locoregional failure rate. Results: Among the 1044 patients (734 men [70.3%]; median [IQR] age, 73 [69-78] years) included in this study, 234 patients (22.4%) were treated with radiotherapy alone and 810 patients (77.6%) received concomitant systemic treatment with chemotherapy (677 [64.8%]) or cetuximab (133 [12.7%]). Using inverse probability weighting to attribute for selection bias, chemoradiation was associated with longer overall survival than radiotherapy alone (hazard ratio [HR], 0.61; 95% CI, 0.48-0.77; P < .001), whereas cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy was not (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.70-1.27; P = .70). Progression-free survival was also longer after the addition of chemotherapy (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.52-0.81; P < .001), while the locoregional failure rate was not significantly different (subhazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.30-1.26; P = .19). The survival benefit of the chemoradiation group was present in patients up to age 80 years (65-69 years: HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.33-0.82; 70-79 years: HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.85), but was absent in patients aged 80 years or older (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.56-1.41). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of older adults with LA- HNSCC, chemoradiation, but not cetuximab-based bioradiotherapy, was associated with longer survival compared with radiotherapy alone.

Clinical endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy: A systematic meta-research analysis.

PURPOSE: Up to 50% of radiotherapy courses are delivered in palliative intent for various indications. Despite the large number of treated patients, we know little about the choice of endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. Our primary aim was, therefore, to analyze primary endpoints in trials of palliative radiotherapy. METHODS: We conducted a pre-registered (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GMCAF) meta-research analysis searching Pubmed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and "ClinicalTrials.gov" for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published 1990-2020. Endpoints were categorized in "patient-centered endpoints", including overall survival and patient-reported outcomes, and "tumor-centered endpoints" such as local control. The remainder were "other endpoints" including toxicity or observer-rated symptoms. We applied descriptive statistics to summarize data and logistic regression to assess if year of publication predicted the choice of primary endpoints. RESULTS: Of 7379 records screened, 292 were eligible. Trials were characterized by small sample sizes and use of external beam radiotherapy for metastases or thoracic primaries. Median patient age was 64 and median ECOG was 1. Only 64.4%(145/225) of published trials clearly stated their primary endpoint. Published trials employed a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 45.5%(66/145) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 17.3%(25/145) of the cases. There was no statistically significant trend in time for the use of "patient-centered primary endpoints". Registered ongoing trials used a "patient-centered primary endpoint" in 32.8%(22/67) and a "tumor-centered primary endpoint" in 26.9%(18/67) of the cases. CONCLUSION: Although "patient-centered primary endpoints" appear relatively prevalent in published trials of palliative radiotherapy, their use is still suboptimal and appears to be lower in currently ongoing trials.

Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Trials of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Approximately 50% of all patients with cancer have an indication for radiotherapy, and approximately 50% of radiotherapy is delivered with palliative intent, with the aim of alleviating symptoms. Symptoms are best assessed by patient-reported outcomes (PROs), yet their reliable interpretation requires adequate reporting in publications. Objective: To investigate the use and reporting of PROs in clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy. Evidence Review: This preregistered systematic review searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials for clinical trials of palliative radiotherapy published from 1990 to 2020. Key eligibility criteria were palliative setting, palliative radiotherapy as treatment modality, and clinical trial design (per National Institutes of Health definition). Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Trial characteristics were extracted and standard of PRO reporting was assessed in adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) PRO extension. The association of the year of publication with the use of PROs was assessed by logistic regression. Factors associated with higher CONSORT-PRO adherence were analyzed by multiple regression. This study is reported following the PRISMA guidelines. Findings: Among 7377 records screened, 225 published clinical trials representing 24 281 patients were eligible. Of these, 45 trials (20%) used a PRO as a primary end point and 71 trials (31%) used a PRO as a secondary end point. The most prevalent PRO measures were the Numeric Rating Scale/Visual Analogue Scale (38 trials), European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (32 trials), and trial-specific unvalidated measures (25 trials). A more recent year of publication was significantly associated with a higher chance of PROs as a secondary end point (odds ratio [OR], 1.04 [95% CI, 1.00-1.07]; P = .03) but not as primary end point. Adherence to CONSORT-PRO was poor or moderate for most items. Mean (SD) adherence to the extension adherence score was 46.2% (19.6%) for trials with PROs as primary end point and 31.8% (19.8%) for trials with PROs as a secondary end point. PROs as a primary end point (regression coefficient, 9.755 [95% CI, 2.270-17.240]; P = .01), brachytherapy as radiotherapy modality (regression coefficient, 16.795 [95% CI, 5.840-27.751]; P = .003), and larger sample size (regression coefficient, 0.028 [95% CI, 0.006-0.049]; P = .01) were significantly associated with better PRO reporting per extension adherence score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review of palliative radiotherapy trials, the use and reporting of PROs had room for improvement for future trials, preferably with PROs as a primary end point.

Cause of Death in Patients in Radiation Oncology.

BACKGROUND: The accurate attribution of death in oncologic patients is a difficult task. The patient's death is often attributed to his or her underlying cancer and therefore judged as cancer-related. We hypothesized that even though our patient's cancers were either advanced or metastatic, not all patients had died simply because of their cancer. METHODS: A total of 105 patients were included in this retrospective analysis. Patient data were collected from digital and paper-based records. Cause of death was assessed from death certificate and compared to the medical autopsy reports. Discrepancies between premortem and postmortem diagnoses were classified as class I and II discrepancies. RESULTS: Of 105 patients included, autopsy consent was obtained in 56 cases (53%). Among them, 32 of 56 were palliatively sedated, and 42/56 patients died cancer-related as confirmed by autopsy. The most common cause of death by autopsy report was multiorgan failure followed by a combination of tumor and infection, predominantly lung cancer with pneumonia. Here, 21/56 cases (37%) showed major missed diagnoses: seven cases showed class I, 10 class II, and both discrepancies. The most commonly missed diagnoses in both categories were infections, again mainly pneumonia. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer was the leading cause of death in our study population. A quarter of the patients, however, did not die due to their advanced or metastatic cancers but of potentially curable causes. We therefore conclude that it is important to consider competing causes of death when treating palliative cancer patients. In a palliative setting, the treatment of a potentially curable complication should be discussed with the patients and their families in a shared decision-making process. From our experience, many patients will decline treatment or even further diagnostics when given the option of best supportive care.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessing the Impact of Palliative Radiotherapy on Quality of Life and Symptom Burden in Head and Neck Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Incurable head and neck cancer has a poor prognosis and impairs a patient's health-related quality of life. Palliative radiotherapy may improve or stabilize health-related quality of life and symptoms, best measured by patient-reported outcomes. There is no systematic analysis if palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer improves or stabilizes health-related quality of life or symptoms as validly measured by patient-reported outcomes. Therefore, the primary objective of this systematic review (PROSPERO-ID: CRD42020166434) was to assess the effect of palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer on patient-reported outcomes. The secondary objective was to assess the rate and quality of use of patient-reported outcomes in relevant studies claiming a "palliative effect" of radiotherapy. The databases MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, "ClinicalTrials.gov" were searched. Concerning the primary objective, four studies were eligible to assess the effectiveness of palliative radiotherapy as measured by patient-reported outcomes. A narrative synthesis suggests a favorable impact of palliative radiotherapy on health-related quality of life and symptom burden. The risk of bias, however, is considerable and the overall quality of evidence low. Concerning the secondary objective, over 90% of studies claiming a "palliative effect" of palliative radiotherapy did either not use patient-reported outcomes or did so by limited quality. In conclusion, implementation of patient-reported outcomes in studies assessing palliative radiotherapy for head and neck cancer should be fostered. Palliative radiotherapy remains an option for head and neck cancer patients, although more studies focusing on patient-reported outcomes are needed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42020166434.