Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review.

AIM: To identify how patient journey mapping is being undertaken and reported. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature was undertaken using JBI guidance. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched in July 2021 (16th-21st), including Ovid's Medline, Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection, the Directory of Open Access Journals; Informit and; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible articles included peer-reviewed literature documenting journey mapping methodologies and studies conducted in healthcare services. Reviewers used Covidence to screen titles and abstracts of located sources, and to screen full-text articles. A table was used to extract data and synthesize results. RESULTS: Eighty-one articles were included. An acceleration of patient journey mapping research was observed, with 76.5% (n = 62) of articles published since 2015. Diverse mapping approaches were identified. Reporting of studies was inconsistent and largely non-adherent with relevant, established reporting guidelines. CONCLUSION: Patient journey mapping is a relatively novel approach for understanding patient experiences and is increasingly being adopted. There is variation in process details reported. Considerations for improving reporting standards are provided. IMPACT: Patient journey mapping is a rapidly growing approach for better understanding how people enter, experience and exit health services. This type of methodology has significant potential to inform new, patient centred models of care and facilitate clinicians, patients and health professionals to better understand gaps and strategies in health services. The synthesised results of this review alert researchers to options available for journey mapping research and provide preliminary guidance for elevating reporting quality.

Imaging Modality and Frequency in Surveillance of Stage I Seminoma Testicular Cancer: Results From a Randomized, Phase III, Noninferiority Trial (TRISST).

PURPOSE: Survival in stage I seminoma is almost 100%. Computed tomography (CT) surveillance is an international standard of care, avoiding adjuvant therapy. In this young population, minimizing irradiation is vital. The Trial of Imaging and Surveillance in Seminoma Testis (TRISST) assessed whether magnetic resonance images (MRIs) or a reduced scan schedule could be used without an unacceptable increase in advanced relapses. METHODS: A phase III, noninferiority, factorial trial. Eligible participants had undergone orchiectomy for stage I seminoma with no adjuvant therapy planned. Random assignment was to seven CTs (6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months); seven MRIs (same schedule); three CTs (6, 18, and 36 months); or three MRIs. The primary outcome was 6-year incidence of Royal Marsden Hospital stage ≥ IIC relapse (> 5 cm), aiming to exclude increases ≥ 5.7% (from 5.7% to 11.4%) with MRI (v CT) or three scans (v 7); target N = 660, all contributing to both comparisons. Secondary outcomes include relapse ≥ 3 cm, disease-free survival, and overall survival. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses were performed. RESULTS: Six hundred sixty-nine patients enrolled (35 UK centers, 2008-2014); mean tumor size was 2.9 cm, and 358 (54%) were low risk (< 4 cm, no rete testis invasion). With a median follow-up of 72 months, 82 (12%) relapsed. Stage ≥ IIC relapse was rare (10 events). Although statistically noninferior, more events occurred with three scans (nine, 2.8%) versus seven scans (one, 0.3%): 2.5% absolute increase, 90% CI (1.0 to 4.1). Only 4/9 could have potentially been detected earlier with seven scans. Noninferiority of MRI versus CT was also shown; fewer events occurred with MRI (two [0.6%] v eight [2.6%]), 1.9% decrease (-3.5 to -0.3). Per-protocol analyses confirmed noninferiority. Five-year survival was 99%, with no tumor-related deaths. CONCLUSION: Surveillance is a safe management approach-advanced relapse is rare, salvage treatment successful, and outcomes excellent, regardless of imaging frequency or modality. MRI can be recommended to reduce irradiation; and no adverse impact on long-term outcomes was seen with a reduced schedule.

Long-term survival after low-dose-rate brachytherapy for prostate cancer: the Royal Surrey experience.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term treatment efficacy of low-dose-rate (LDR) brachytherapy for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cause-of-death annotation in our prospective database was supplemented with death certificate information obtained via an internal audit of patients treated from 1999 to 2017 with LDR prostate brachytherapy as monotherapy or as combination with androgen deprivation therapy and/or external beam radiotherapy. Overall and disease-specific survival were the primary outcomes, estimated with Kaplan-Meier and competing risks multi-state models. Clinical variables influencing mortality were assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression in a sub-analysis of men to assess the predictive value of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level at 48 months post implant. RESULTS: The audit process began in October 2017 and culminated in June 2020 with a curated series of 2936 patients. All-cause and prostate cancer-specific death prevalence were 11% and 2.9%, respectively. The median (range) follow-up time was 10 (3-21) years and the median (range) time to death from any cause was 9 (3-21) years. At 15 years post implant the overall and prostate cancer-specific survival probability were 81% and 95%, respectively. The 15-year cumulative incidence rates of death not due and due to prostate cancer were 14% and 5%, respectively. A greater risk of death due to prostate cancer was conferred by increasing age at therapy (hazard ratio [HR] 1.1, P < 0.001), advanced clinical stages relative to T1a-T2a (HR 1.9, P = 0.048 for T2b; HR 2.7, P = 0.023 for T2c-T3b) and a 48-month PSA level >1.0 ng/mL (HR 6.8, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study constitutes the largest retrospective analyses of long-term mortality outcomes from prospectively collected prostate brachytherapy data and confirms the excellent treatment efficacy of LDR prostate brachytherapy for localized prostate cancer. T2 clinical stage subdivisions and 48-month PSA level >1.0 ng/mL appear to be strong indicators of prostate cancer-related survival.

Robot-assisted salvage seminal vesicle excision for isolated recurrence after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy.

OBJECTIVES: To report clinical and functional outcomes for patients who have undergone salvage robot-assisted seminal vesicle excision (RA-SVE) for the focal treatment of isolated seminal vesical (SV) recurrence after treatment for prostate cancer by low-dose-rate brachytherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with rising prostate-specific antigen (PSA) after low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) underwent multi-parametric magnetic resonance imaging (mp-MRI) of the prostate and 11 C-Choline or 68 Ga-prostate-specific membrane antigen (68 Ga-PSMA) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scan, followed by targeted transperineal biopsy of the prostate and SVs. Isolated SV recurrence were identified in 17 (0.38%) LDR-PB patients. These 17 patients were offered RA-SVE. RESULTS: The median total operative time was 90 min and blood loss 50 mL with no postoperative transfusions required. The median hospital stay was 1 day. No intra- or postoperative complications were documented. Continence status was unaffected, no patient required urinary pads. Postoperative pathology confirmed SV invasion in all specimens. Surgical margins were positive in seven (41%) patients. All patients had at least one positive imaging study, although three (18%) mp-MRI and five (29%) PET/CT assessments were negative. One (6%) pre-SVE biopsy was also negative but with positive imaging. Salvage SVE failure, defined as three consecutive PSA rises or the need for further treatment, occurred in six patients of whom three had a positive margin. Overall failure-free survival rates were 86%, 67%, and 53% at 1, 2, and 3 years after SVE, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Salvage RA-SVE appears to be a safe focal treatment, with very low morbidity, for patients with localised SV recurrence after LDR-PB. It permits deferral of androgen deprivation therapy in selected patients. Bilateral SVE is mandatory. This surgical option should be considered in patients with isolated prostate cancer recurrence to the SV.

Reporting of patient journey mapping in current literature: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will assess the literature that documents or utilizes patient journey mapping methodologies in health care settings. It will also examine the reporting processes of studies that use this methodology. INTRODUCTION: Health care systems are complex and can be challenging for patients to navigate. Using patient journey mapping as a research method promotes a deeper understanding of patient experiences when navigating these systems. Patient journey mapping provides valuable insights into where systems are working well, where gaps in care exist, and how the system could respond to these gaps. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider peer-reviewed articles and publicly available academic literature documenting patient journey mapping methodologies. The review will also consider studies providing guidance and recommendations on how to report patient journey mapping studies in health care services and systems. METHODS: The proposed review will follow JBI guidance for scoping reviews. The following databases will be searched: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science Core Collection, the Directory of Open Access Journals, Informit, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. The search will not be limited to year of publication but will be limited to studies reported in English. The PRISMA-ScR extension will be used to document the literature search. Two reviewers will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. An extraction table will be used to extract relevant data from all included articles and to facilitate data analysis.

Introducing the Needs in Recovery Assessment (NiRA) into clinical practice: protocol for a pilot study investigating the formal and systematic assessment of clinical and social needs experienced by service users at a tertiary, metropolitan mental health service.

BACKGROUND: The Needs in Recovery Assessment (NiRA) is a newly developed needs assessment tool, designed to identify the needs of people recovering from mental illness. This tool has been evaluated outside of the clinical context for validity and reliability. The aim of this study is to introduce the NiRA into clinical practice and to evaluate the value of the NiRA as an adjunct to service delivery from the perspectives of stakeholders and to evaluate the barriers and facilitators of embedding the NiRA in a mental health service. METHODS: The establishment of the NiRA in a tertiary mental health unit over a 6-month period will be evaluated using a multi-methods approach. Quantitative data will be collected using the NiRA itself and the Recovery Self-Assessment (RSA). Face-to-face interviews with service users and clinicians will be conducted following the initial completion of the NiRA, with a follow-up interview for service users on discharge from the service. Regular informal follow-up with clinicians throughout the study will support the introduction of the NiRA. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyse quantitative data, and descriptive qualitative methods will be used to analyse data from interviews. DISCUSSION: Aligning mental health services with recovery-oriented frameworks of care is imperative. The NiRA is a tool that has been designed in accordance with recovery principles and may assist services to be more recovery-oriented. If the NiRA is able to achieve the aims and objectives of this project, a larger implementation study will be conducted. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ANZCTR), ACTRN12621000316808.

Responding to catastrophe: A case study of learning from perinatal death in midwifery practice.

PROBLEM/BACKGROUND: Perinatal death has far reaching emotional effects for all involved in this devastating event. The opportunity for learning as a result of this catastrophe, however, remains unexplored. AIM: To explore midwives' experiences of caring through, and learning from, perinatal death, to better inform the effective planning and delivery of education that optimises both midwifery and self-care. METHODS: A naturalistic interpretive multiple case study design. Seventeen midwives, located in Australia, participated in an online group activity hosted as a blog, followed by telephonic focus groups and in-depth email interviews. FINDINGS: Thematic data analysis revealed seven major themes: Grappling with the reality of perinatal death; Struggling with personal and professional heartache; Seeking the space to grieve as a professional; Being with the woman and her family; Finding a new purpose; Strengthened through support; and Developing the courage to care. DISCUSSION: The initial turmoil and impact of loss reflected the catastrophic nature of perinatal death. Midwives uncovered a journey to acceptance and learning, realising a determination to enhance expertise and discovering value in experiential knowledge. Insecurity regarding competence and confidence to manage perinatal death and bereavement care was highlighted. However, sharing their stories revealed professional fulfilment, personal strength, and solidarity amongst midwives who have endured similar experiences. CONCLUSION: A coordinated approach to support and the dissemination of experiential knowledge and learning could be developed within an online model of narrative sharing and discussion. Debriefing, support and sharing of expertise in this way may foster engagement within and beyond the workplace.

Hemi-ablative low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy for unilateral localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To report clinical outcomes of the Hemi-Ablative Prostate Brachytherapy (HAPpy) trial evaluating treatment-related toxicity and effectiveness of hemi-gland (HG) low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy as a focal approach to control unilateral localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Single institution phase IIS pilot study of patients treated with focal 4D Brachytherapy™ (BXTAccelyon, Burnham, Buckinghamshire, UK). The primary outcome was patient-reported toxicity 24 months after implant. The secondary outcome was assessment of disease control. Outcomes in HG patients were compared to whole-gland (WG) controls obtained from our prospective cohort registry by negative binomial and linear regression models. RESULTS: Pre-treatment demography was similar between the 30 HG patients and 362 WG controls. Post-implant dosimetry was similar for the prostate gland target volumes and significantly reduced for the urethra and bowel in HG patients relative to WG controls, but this did not translate into a difference in post-implant mean symptom scores between the two groups. Nevertheless, the change in score from baseline indicated that the impact on pre-treatment symptom status was less after HG implants. Only HG patients showed a return to baseline urinary scores as early as 12 months. Sexual potency was conserved in 73% and 67% of HG and WG patients, respectively (P = 0.84). Post-implant prostate-specific antigen (PSA) kinetics revealed that baseline PSA was reduced at 24 months by 78% and 88% in HG and WG patients, respectively (P < 0.05). Treatment relapse occurred in one (3%) HG patient 55 months after implant and in nine (3%) WG patients at 32-67 months after implant. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that treatment-related toxicity and biochemical outcomes after HG implants are broadly similar to those observed with WG treatment despite the lower dose delivered by HG implants.

Low-dose-rate brachytherapy for the treatment of localised prostate cancer in men with a high risk of disease relapse.

OBJECTIVES: To report clinical outcomes of 125 I low-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy (LDR-PB) as monotherapy or combined with androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) in high-risk localised prostate cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Analysis of clinical outcomes from a prospective cohort of patients treated with LDR-PB alone or combined treatment in a single institution. Men with a high risk of disease relapse were identified by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria or by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) criteria. Relapse-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS), and metastases-free survival (MFS), were analysed together with patient-reported symptom scores and physician-reported adverse events. RESULTS: The NICE and NCCN criteria identified 267 and 202 high-risk patients, respectively. NICE-defined patients had significantly lower pre-treatment PSA levels, Gleason scores <7, and a greater proportion of patients who received LDR-PB monotherapy. At 9 years after implantation RFS was 89% and 87% in the NICE and NCCN groups, respectively (log-rank P = 0.637), and OS 93% and 94%, respectively (log-rank P = 0.481). All of the survival estimates were similar between LDR-PB monotherapy and combined therapies. Cox proportional hazards regression confirmed RFS was similar between the treatment types. Treatment-related toxicity was also similar between the treatment methods. CONCLUSION: LDR-PB is effective at controlling localised prostate cancer in patients with a high risk of disease relapse. As the present study was not randomised, it is not possible to define those patients who need the addition of ADT and/or EBRT. However, the NICE criteria appear suitable to define treatment options where patients could benefit from LDR-PB as monotherapy or combined treatment. This choice should be discussed with the patient taking into account comorbidities and presence of multiple high-risk factors.

Addition of Docetaxel to First-line Long-term Hormone Therapy in Prostate Cancer (STAMPEDE): Modelling to Estimate Long-term Survival, Quality-adjusted Survival, and Cost-effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Results from large randomised controlled trials have shown that adding docetaxel to the standard of care (SOC) for men initiating hormone therapy for prostate cancer (PC) prolongs survival for those with metastatic disease and prolongs failure-free survival for those without. To date there has been no formal assessment of whether funding docetaxel in this setting represents an appropriate use of UK National Health Service (NHS) resources. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether administering docetaxel to men with PC starting long-term hormone therapy is cost-effective in a UK setting. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We modelled health outcomes and costs in the UK NHS using data collected within the STAMPEDE trial, which enrolled men with high-risk, locally advanced metastatic or recurrent PC starting first-line hormone therapy. INTERVENTION: SOC was hormone therapy for ≥2 yr and radiotherapy in some patients. Docetaxel (75mg/m2) was administered alongside SOC for six three-weekly cycles. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The model generated lifetime predictions of costs, changes in survival duration, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The model predicted that docetaxel would extend survival (discounted quality-adjusted survival) by 0.89 yr (0.51) for metastatic PC and 0.78 yr (0.39) for nonmetastatic PC, and would be cost-effective in metastatic PC (ICER £5514/QALY vs SOC) and nonmetastatic PC (higher QALYs, lower costs vs SOC). Docetaxel remained cost-effective in nonmetastatic PC when the assumption of no survival advantage was modelled. CONCLUSIONS: Docetaxel is cost-effective among patients with nonmetastatic and metastatic PC in a UK setting. Clinicians should consider whether the evidence is now sufficiently compelling to support docetaxel use in patients with nonmetastatic PC, as the opportunity to offer docetaxel at hormone therapy initiation will be missed for some patients by the time more mature survival data are available. PATIENT SUMMARY: Starting docetaxel chemotherapy alongside hormone therapy represents a good use of UK National Health Service resources for patients with prostate cancer that is high risk or has spread to other parts of the body.

Long-term oncological outcomes and toxicity in 597 men aged ≤60 years at time of low-dose-rate brachytherapy for localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To report oncological and functional outcomes of men treated with low-dose-rate (LDR) prostate brachytherapy aged ≤60 years at time of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Of 3262 patients treated with LDR brachytherapy at our centre up to June 2016, we retrospectively identified 597 patients aged ≤60 years at treatment with ≥3-years post-implantation follow-up and four prostate-specific antigen (PSA) measurements, of which one was at baseline. Overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCSS) and relapse free survival (RFS) were analysed together with prospectively collected physician-reported adverse events and patient-reported symptom scores. RESULTS: The median (range) age was 57 (44-60) years, follow-up was 8.9 (1.5-17.2) years, and PSA follow-up 5.9 (0.8-15) years. Low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease represented 53%, 37% and 10% of the patients, respectively. At 10 years after implantation OS and PCSS were 98% and 99% for low-risk, 99% and 100% for intermediate-risk, and 93% and 95% for high-risk disease, respectively. At 10 years after implantation RFS, using the PSA level nadir plus 2 ng/mL definition, was 95%, 90% and 87% for low-, intermediate-, and high-risk disease, respectively. Urinary stricture was the most common genitourinary adverse event occurring in 19 patients (3.2%). At 5 years after implantation erectile function was preserved in 75% of the patients who were potent before treatment. CONCLUSION: LDR brachytherapy is an effective treatment with long-term control of prostate cancer in men aged ≤60 years at time of treatment. It was associated with low rates of treatment-related toxicity and can be considered a first-line treatment for prostate cancer in this patient group.

Accelerated versus standard epirubicin followed by cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil or capecitabine as adjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the randomised UK TACT2 trial (CRUK/05/19): a multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer has improved outcomes but causes toxicity. The UK TACT2 trial used a 2×2 factorial design to test two hypotheses: whether use of accelerated epirubicin would improve time to tumour recurrence (TTR); and whether use of oral capecitabine instead of cyclophosphamide would be non-inferior in terms of patients' outcomes and would improve toxicity, quality of life, or both. METHODS: In this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older from 129 UK centres who had histologically confirmed node-positive or high-risk node-negative operable breast cancer, had undergone complete excision, and were due to receive adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to receive four cycles of 100 mg/m2 epirubicin either every 3 weeks (standard epirubicin) or every 2 weeks with 6 mg pegfilgrastim on day 2 of each cycle (accelerated epirubicin), followed by four 4-week cycles of either classic cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF; 600 mg/m2 cyclophosphamide intravenously on days 1 and 8 or 100 mg/m2 orally on days 1-14; 40 mg/m2 methotrexate intravenously on days 1 and 8; and 600 mg/m2 fluorouracil intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each cycle) or four 3-week cycles of 2500 mg/m2 capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 given twice daily on days 1-14 of each cycle). The randomisation schedule was computer generated in random permuted blocks, stratified by centre, number of nodes involved (none vs one to three vs four or more), age (≤50 years vs >50 years), and planned endocrine treatment (yes vs no). The primary endpoint was TTR, defined as time from randomisation to first invasive relapse or breast cancer death, with intention-to-treat analysis of standard versus accelerated epirubicin and per-protocol analysis of CMF versus capecitabine. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 68068041, and with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00301925. FINDINGS: From Dec 16, 2005, to Dec 5, 2008, 4391 patients (4371 women and 20 men) were recruited. At a median follow-up of 85·6 months (IQR 80·6-95·9) no significant difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the accelerated and standard epirubicin groups (overall hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·81-1·09; stratified p=0·42). At 5 years, 85·9% (95% CI 84·3-87·3) of patients receiving standard epirubicin and 87·1% (85·6-88·4) of those receiving accelerated epirubicin were free from TTR events. 4358 patients were included in the per-protocol analysis, and no difference was seen in the proportions of patients free from TTR events between the CMF and capecitabine groups (HR 0·98, 95% CI 0·85-1.14; stratified p=0·00092 for non-inferiority). Compared with baseline, significantly more patients taking CMF than those taking capecitabine had clinically relevant worsening of quality of life at end of treatment (255 [58%] of 441 vs 235 [50%] of 475; p=0·011) and at 12 months (114 [34%] of 334 vs 89 [22%] of 401; p<0·001 at 12 months) and had worse quality of life over time (p<0·0001). Detailed toxicity and quality-of-life data were collected from 2115 (48%) of treated patients. The most common grade 3 or higher adverse events in cycles 1-4 were neutropenia (175 [16%]) and fatigue (56 [5%]) of the 1070 patients treated with standard epirubicin, and fatigue (63 [6%]) and infection (34 [3%]) of the 1045 patients treated with accelerated epirubicin. In cycles 5-8, the most common grade 3 or higher adverse events were neutropenia (321 [31%]) and fatigue (109 [11%]) in the patients treated with CMF, and hand-foot syndrome (129 [12%]) and diarrhoea (67 [6%]) in the 1044 patients treated with capcitabine. INTERPRETATION: We found no benefit from increasing the dose density of the anthracycline component of chemotherapy. However, capecitabine could be used in place of CMF without significant loss of efficacy and with improved quality of life. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Amgen, Pfizer, and Roche.

Hemi-gland focal low dose rate prostate brachytherapy: An analysis of dosimetric outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Advances in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and prostate sampling enable early identification of men with low to intermediate risk prostate cancer who are candidates for focal therapies that minimise side effects. We report dosimetry data from a pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of hemi-gland low dose rate (HG-LDR) brachytherapy as a focal therapy approach to control unilateral localised disease. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two men underwent HG-LDR brachytherapy. Multi parametric MRI and transperineal template mapping biopsies were used to identify low volume unilateral disease. Whole gland therapy controls (n=120) were retrospectively obtained. All implants were performed with 4D Brachytherapy. RESULTS: Intraoperative and postimplant dosimetry complied with established brachytherapy parameters. Mean (standard deviation) postoperative D90 for the target hemi-gland was 153.8 (11.3) Gy compared to 47.5 (12.7) Gy for the contralateral hemi-gland (P<0.001). Mean postoperative V100% was 93.1 (3.9) and 24.6 (10.5) for the target and contralateral hemi-glands respectively (P<0.001). Urethra D30 was 150.4 (19.8) Gy and 174.2 (15.0) Gy for hemi-gland and whole gland implants respectively (P<0.001). Significantly reduced dose was also observed for rectum and neurovascular bundles. CONCLUSIONS: HG-LDR focal brachytherapy is feasible with significant reduction in dose to the contralateral hemi-gland and organs at risk.

Use of claims data to estimate annual cervical cancer screening percentages in Portland metropolitan area, Oregon.

BACKGROUND: Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine should reduce cervical dysplasia before cervical cancer. However, dysplasia diagnosis is screening-dependent. Accurate screening estimates are needed. PURPOSE: To estimate the percentage of women in a geographic population that has had cervical cancer screening. METHODS: We analyzed claims data for (Papanicolau) Pap tests from 2008-2012 to estimate the percentage of insured women aged 18-39 years screened. We estimated screening in uninsured women by dividing the percentage of insured Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey respondents reporting previous-year testing by the percentage of uninsured respondents reporting previous-year testing, and multiplying this ratio by claims-based estimates of insured women with previous-year screening. We calculated a simple weighted average of the two estimates to estimate overall screening percentage. We estimated credible intervals using Monte-Carlo simulations. RESULTS: During 2008-2012, an annual average of 29.6% of women aged 18-39 years were screened. Screening increased from 2008 to 2009 in all age groups. During 2009-2012, the screening percentages decreased for all groups, but declined most in women aged 18-20 years, from 21.5% to 5.4%. Within age groups, compared to 2009, credible intervals did not overlap during 2011 (except age group 21-29 years) and 2012, and credible intervals in the 18-20 year group did not overlap with older groups in any year. CONCLUSIONS: This introduces a novel method to estimate population-level cervical cancer screening. Overall, percentage of women screened in Portland, Oregon fell following changes in screening recommendations released in 2009 and later modified in 2012.

Addition of docetaxel, zoledronic acid, or both to first-line long-term hormone therapy in prostate cancer (STAMPEDE): survival results from an adaptive, multiarm, multistage, platform randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Long-term hormone therapy has been the standard of care for advanced prostate cancer since the 1940s. STAMPEDE is a randomised controlled trial using a multiarm, multistage platform design. It recruits men with high-risk, locally advanced, metastatic or recurrent prostate cancer who are starting first-line long-term hormone therapy. We report primary survival results for three research comparisons testing the addition of zoledronic acid, docetaxel, or their combination to standard of care versus standard of care alone. METHODS: Standard of care was hormone therapy for at least 2 years; radiotherapy was encouraged for men with N0M0 disease to November, 2011, then mandated; radiotherapy was optional for men with node-positive non-metastatic (N+M0) disease. Stratified randomisation (via minimisation) allocated men 2:1:1:1 to standard of care only (SOC-only; control), standard of care plus zoledronic acid (SOC + ZA), standard of care plus docetaxel (SOC + Doc), or standard of care with both zoledronic acid and docetaxel (SOC + ZA + Doc). Zoledronic acid (4 mg) was given for six 3-weekly cycles, then 4-weekly until 2 years, and docetaxel (75 mg/m(2)) for six 3-weekly cycles with prednisolone 10 mg daily. There was no blinding to treatment allocation. The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Pairwise comparisons of research versus control had 90% power at 2·5% one-sided α for hazard ratio (HR) 0·75, requiring roughly 400 control arm deaths. Statistical analyses were undertaken with standard log-rank-type methods for time-to-event data, with hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs derived from adjusted Cox models. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00268476) and ControlledTrials.com (ISRCTN78818544). FINDINGS: 2962 men were randomly assigned to four groups between Oct 5, 2005, and March 31, 2013. Median age was 65 years (IQR 60-71). 1817 (61%) men had M+ disease, 448 (15%) had N+/X M0, and 697 (24%) had N0M0. 165 (6%) men were previously treated with local therapy, and median prostate-specific antigen was 65 ng/mL (IQR 23-184). Median follow-up was 43 months (IQR 30-60). There were 415 deaths in the control group (347 [84%] prostate cancer). Median overall survival was 71 months (IQR 32 to not reached) for SOC-only, not reached (32 to not reached) for SOC + ZA (HR 0·94, 95% CI 0·79-1·11; p=0·450), 81 months (41 to not reached) for SOC + Doc (0·78, 0·66-0·93; p=0·006), and 76 months (39 to not reached) for SOC + ZA + Doc (0·82, 0·69-0·97; p=0·022). There was no evidence of heterogeneity in treatment effect (for any of the treatments) across prespecified subsets. Grade 3-5 adverse events were reported for 399 (32%) patients receiving SOC, 197 (32%) receiving SOC + ZA, 288 (52%) receiving SOC + Doc, and 269 (52%) receiving SOC + ZA + Doc. INTERPRETATION: Zoledronic acid showed no evidence of survival improvement and should not be part of standard of care for this population. Docetaxel chemotherapy, given at the time of long-term hormone therapy initiation, showed evidence of improved survival accompanied by an increase in adverse events. Docetaxel treatment should become part of standard of care for adequately fit men commencing long-term hormone therapy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Pfizer, Janssen, Astellas, NIHR Clinical Research Network, Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research.

Survival with Newly Diagnosed Metastatic Prostate Cancer in the "Docetaxel Era": Data from 917 Patients in the Control Arm of the STAMPEDE Trial (MRC PR08, CRUK/06/019).

BACKGROUND: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common disease among men worldwide. It is important to know survival outcomes and prognostic factors for this disease. Recruitment for the largest therapeutic randomised controlled trial in PCa--the Systemic Therapy in Advancing or Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Evaluation of Drug Efficacy: A Multi-Stage Multi-Arm Randomised Controlled Trial (STAMPEDE)--includes men with newly diagnosed metastatic PCa who are commencing long-term androgen deprivation therapy (ADT); the control arm provides valuable data for a prospective cohort. OBJECTIVE: Describe survival outcomes, along with current treatment standards and factors associated with prognosis, to inform future trial design in this patient group. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: STAMPEDE trial control arm comprising men newly diagnosed with M1 disease who were recruited between October 2005 and January 2014. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Overall survival (OS) and failure-free survival (FFS) were reported by primary disease characteristics using Kaplan-Meier methods. Hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from multivariate Cox models. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A cohort of 917 men with newly diagnosed M1 disease was recruited to the control arm in the specified interval. Median follow-up was 20 mo. Median age at randomisation was 66 yr (interquartile range [IQR]: 61-71), and median prostate-specific antigen level was 112 ng/ml (IQR: 34-373). Most men (n=574; 62%) had bone-only metastases, whereas 237 (26%) had both bone and soft tissue metastases; soft tissue metastasis was found mainly in distant lymph nodes. There were 238 deaths, 202 (85%) from PCa. Median FFS was 11 mo; 2-yr FFS was 29% (95% CI, 25-33). Median OS was 42 mo; 2-yr OS was 72% (95% CI, 68-76). Survival time was influenced by performance status, age, Gleason score, and metastases distribution. Median survival after FFS event was 22 mo. Trial eligibility criteria meant men were younger and fitter than general PCa population. CONCLUSIONS: Survival remains disappointing in men presenting with M1 disease who are started on only long-term ADT, despite active treatments being available at first failure of ADT. Importantly, men with M1 disease now spend the majority of their remaining life in a state of castration-resistant relapse. PATIENT SUMMARY: Results from this control arm cohort found survival is relatively short and highly influenced by patient age, fitness, and where prostate cancer has spread in the body.

Phase I Study to Assess the Combination of Afatinib with Trastuzumab in Patients with Advanced or Metastatic HER2-Positive Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: The HER2 mAb, trastuzumab, is a standard therapy for patients with HER2-positive breast cancer before acquired resistance. Afatinib, an irreversible, oral, small-molecule ErbB family blocker, shows clinical activity in trastuzumab-refractory HER2-positive breast cancer. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: This phase I study used a 3+3 dose escalation to determine the MTD of oral once-daily afatinib in combination with the recommended dose of intravenous trastuzumab (4 mg/kg week 1; 2 mg/kg/wk thereafter). Adult women with confirmed advanced/metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer were eligible. RESULTS: Of 18 patients treated, 16 received daily afatinib 20 mg and two 30 mg. Overall, 4 of 13 and 2 of 2 patients receiving afatinib 20 mg and 30 mg, respectively, experienced dose-limiting toxicity (DLT; all CTCAE grade 3 diarrhea). Most frequent treatment-related adverse events were diarrhea (94%), rash (56%), and fatigue (56%). Overall, pharmacokinetic profiles of afatinib and trastuzumab in combination were consistent with the known characteristics of each alone. Overall, objective response and disease control rates were 11% and 39%, respectively, with median progression-free survival 111.0 days (95% confidence interval, 56.0-274.0). CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of afatinib was 20 mg daily combined with the recommended weekly dose of trastuzumab, with 1 of 6 patients showing DLTs in the dose escalation. However, additional DLTs occurred in the dose-expansion phase meaning that this MTD cannot be recommended for phase II development without strict diarrhea management. There was no evidence suggesting relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Signs of clinical activity were seen in trastuzumab-resistant HER2-positive breast cancer, suggesting further investigation with optimal diarrhea management is warranted.