The experience of surgical cancer patients during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large cancer centre in London.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had an enormous impact on the experiences of patients across all health disciplines, especially those of cancer patients. The study aimed to understand the experiences of cancer patients who underwent surgery during the first two waves of the pandemic at Guy's Cancer Centre, which is a large tertiary cancer centre in London. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was adopted for this study. Firstly, a survey was co-designed by the research team and a patient study group. Patients who underwent surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic were invited to take part in this survey. Results were analysed descriptively. Three discussion groups were then conducted to focus on the main themes from the survey findings: communication, COVID-19 risk management and overall experience. These discussion groups were transcribed verbatim and underwent a thematic analysis using the NVivo software package. RESULTS: Out of 1657 patients invited, a total of 250 (15%) participants took part in the survey with a mean age of 66 (SD 12.8) and 52% females. The sample was representative of a wide range of tumour sites and was reflective of those invited to take part. Overall, the experience of the cancer patients was positive. They felt that the safety protocols implemented at the hospital were effective. Communication was considered key, and patients were receptive to a change in the mode of communication from in-person to virtual. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the immense challenges faced by our Cancer Centre, patients undergoing surgery during the first two waves of the COVID-19 pandemic had a generally positive experience with minimal disruptions to their planned surgery and ongoing care. Together with the COVID-19 safety precautions, effective communication between the clinical teams and the patients helped the overall patient experience during their surgical treatment.

Immune-monitoring of myelodysplastic neoplasms: Recommendations from the i4MDS consortium.

Advancements in comprehending myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) have unfolded significantly in recent years, elucidating a myriad of cellular and molecular underpinnings integral to disease progression. While molecular inclusions into prognostic models have substantively advanced risk stratification, recent revelations have emphasized the pivotal role of immune dysregulation within the bone marrow milieu during MDS evolution. Nonetheless, immunotherapy for MDS has not experienced breakthroughs seen in other malignancies, partly attributable to the absence of an immune classification that could stratify patients toward optimally targeted immunotherapeutic approaches. A pivotal obstacle to establishing "immune classes" among MDS patients is the absence of validated accepted immune panels suitable for routine application in clinical laboratories. In response, we formed International Integrative Innovative Immunology for MDS (i4MDS), a consortium of multidisciplinary experts, and created the following recommendations for standardized methodologies to monitor immune responses in MDS. A central goal of i4MDS is the development of an immune score that could be incorporated into current clinical risk stratification models. This position paper first consolidates current knowledge on MDS immunology. Subsequently, in collaboration with clinical and laboratory specialists, we introduce flow cytometry panels and cytokine assays, meticulously devised for clinical laboratories, aiming to monitor the immune status of MDS patients, evaluating both immune fitness and identifying potential immune "risk factors." By amalgamating this immunological characterization data and molecular data, we aim to enhance patient stratification, identify predictive markers for treatment responsiveness, and accelerate the development of systems immunology tools and innovative immunotherapies.

How Can We Improve Patient-Clinician Communication for Men Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer?

Background and objective: The ability of health care professionals to communicate with patients compassionately and effectively is crucial for shared decision-making, but little research has investigated patient-clinician communication. As part of PIONEER-an international Big Data Consortium led by the European Association of Urology to answer key questions for men with prostate cancer (PCa), funded through the IMI2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement 777492- we investigated communication between men diagnosed with PCa and the health care professional(s) treating them across Europe. Methods: We used the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Communication 26, which was shared via the PIONEER and patient organisations on March 11, 2022. We sought men who spoke French, Italian, Spanish, German, Dutch, or English who were diagnosed with PCa and were undergoing or had already received treatment for their PCa. Results and limitations: A total of 372 men reported that they communicated with their clinician during either the diagnostic or the treatment period. Overall, the majority of participants reported positive experiences. However, important opportunities to enhance communication were identified, particularly with regard to correcting misunderstandings, understanding the patient's preferred approach to information presentation, addressing challenging questions, supporting the patient's comprehension of information, attending to the patient's emotional needs, and assessing what information had already been given to patients about their disease and treatment, and how much of it was understood. Conclusions and clinical implications: These results help us to identify gaps and barriers to shared treatment decision making. This knowledge will help devise measures to improve patient-health care professional communication in the PCa setting. Patient summary: As part of the PIONEER initiative, we investigated the communication between men diagnosed with prostate cancer and their health care professionals across Europe. A total of 372 men from six different countries participated in the study. Most participants reported positive experiences, but areas where communication could be improved were identified. These included addressing misunderstandings, tailoring the presentation of information to the patient's preferences, handling difficult questions, supporting emotional needs, and assessing the patient's understanding of their diagnosis and treatment.

Predictive Models for Assessing Patients' Response to Treatment in Metastatic Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review.

Background and objective: The treatment landscape of metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) has evolved significantly over the past two decades. Despite this, the optimal therapy for patients with mPCa has not been determined. This systematic review identifies available predictive models that assess mPCa patients' response to treatment. Methods: We critically reviewed MEDLINE and CENTRAL in December 2022 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement. Only quantitative studies in English were included with no time restrictions. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the PROBAST tool. Data were extracted following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews criteria. Key findings and limitations: The search identified 616 citations, of which 15 studies were included in our review. Nine of the included studies were validated internally or externally. Only one study had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. Many studies failed to detail model performance adequately, resulting in a high risk of bias. Where reported, the models indicated good or excellent performance. Conclusions and clinical implications: Most of the identified predictive models require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before these can be implemented in clinical practice to assist with treatment decision-making for men with mPCa. Patient summary: In this review, we evaluate studies that predict which treatments will work best for which metastatic prostate cancer patients. We found that existing studies need further improvement before these can be used by health care professionals.

Real-world data evaluating Guy's rapid diagnostic clinic as an alternate pathway for patients with FIT levels below 10.

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the effectiveness of rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) as an alternative pathway for patients with concerning symptoms and a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) result <10. Our primary endpoint was rate of colorectal cancer (CRC) detection. Second endpoints were rates of other cancers and gastrointestinal (GI) serious benign conditions. Finally, we analysed the specific pathway followed by FIT <10 patients with cancer at Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC. DESIGN: A retrospective and prospective cohort study. SETTING: GSTT RDC, one of England's largest single-centre RDCs. Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of FIT <10 patients were analysed descriptively. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with an FIT result <10, seen at GSTT RDC between 1 January 2020 and 5 May 2023. RESULTS: A total of 1299 patients with an FIT<10 were seen at GSTT RDC between January 2020 and May 2023. Of these, 66% (n=861) reported weight loss, 62% (n=805) pain, 37% (n=481) fatigue, 34% (n=444) were anaemic and 23% (n=301) had nausea and vomiting. Among these patients, 7% (n=88) received a cancer diagnosis, 36% (n=462) were identified as having a serious benign condition. Within the patients with cancer, 9% (n=8) were diagnosed with CRC. Among patients with serious benign conditions, 7% (n=31) were referred to colorectal, hepatopancreatobiliary, or upper GI specialists. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the effectiveness of RDCs as an alternate pathway for FIT <10 patients with ongoing clinical concerns. These results contribute to enhancing patient care and optimising resource allocation within the healthcare system.

Survivorship Data in Prostate Cancer: Where Are We and Where Do We Need To Be?

Cancer survivorship was recently identified as a prostate cancer (PCa) research priority by PIONEER, a European network of excellence for big data in PCa. Despite being a research priority, cancer survivorship lacks a clear and agreed definition, and there is a distinct paucity of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available on the subject. Data collection on cancer survivorship depends on the availability and implementation of (validated) routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There have been recent advances in the availability of such PROMs. For instance, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) is developing survivorship questionnaires. This provides an excellent first step in improving the data available on cancer survivorship. However, we propose that an agreed, standardised definition of (prostate) cancer survivorship must first be established. Only then can real-world data on survivorship be collected to strengthen our knowledge base. With more men than ever surviving PCa, this type of research is imperative to ensure that the quality of life of these men is considered as much as their quantity of life. Patient summary: As there are more prostate cancer survivors than ever before, research into cancer survivorship is crucial. We highlight the importance of such research and provide recommendations on how to carry it out. The first step should be establishing agreement on a standardised definition of survivorship. From this, patient-reported outcome measures can then be used to collect important survivorship data.

Predicting programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression with fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose ([18F]FDG) positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) metabolic parameters in resectable non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression is a predictive biomarker for immunotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). PD-L1 and glucose transporter 1 expression are closely associated, and studies demonstrate correlation of PD-L1 with glucose metabolism. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) metabolic parameters with PD-L1 expression in primary lung tumour and lymph node metastases in resected NSCLC. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 210 patients with node-positive resectable stage IIB-IIIB NSCLC. PD-L1 tumour proportion score (TPS) was determined using the DAKO 22C3 immunohistochemical assay. Semi-automated techniques were used to analyse pre-operative [18F]FDG-PET/CT images to determine primary and nodal metabolic parameter scores (including max, mean, peak and peak adjusted for lean body mass standardised uptake values (SUV), metabolic tumour volume (MTV), total lesional glycolysis (TLG) and SUV heterogeneity index (HISUV)). RESULTS: Patients were predominantly male (57%), median age 70 years with non-squamous NSCLC (68%). A majority had negative primary tumour PD-L1 (TPS < 1%; 53%). Mean SUVmax, SUVmean, SUVpeak and SULpeak values were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in those with TPS ≥ 1% in primary tumour (n = 210) or lymph nodes (n = 91). However, ROC analysis demonstrated only moderate separability at the 1% PD-L1 TPS threshold (AUCs 0.58-0.73). There was no association of MTV, TLG and HISUV with PD-L1 TPS. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated the association of SUV-based [18F]FDG-PET/CT metabolic parameters with PD-L1 expression in primary tumour or lymph node metastasis in resectable NSCLC, but with poor sensitivity and specificity for predicting PD-L1 positivity ≥ 1%. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Whilst SUV-based fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography metabolic parameters may not predict programmed death-ligand 1 positivity ≥ 1% in the primary tumour and lymph nodes of resectable non-small cell lung cancer independently, there is a clear association which warrants further investigation in prospective studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Non-applicable KEY POINTS: • Programmed death-ligand 1 immunohistochemistry has a predictive role in non-small cell lung cancer immunotherapy; however, it is both heterogenous and dynamic. • SUV-based fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography ([18F]FDG-PET/CT) metabolic parameters were significantly higher in primary tumour or lymph node metastases with positive programmed death-ligand 1 expression. • These SUV-based parameters could potentially play an additive role along with other multi-modal biomarkers in selecting patients within a predictive nomogram.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in patients with soft tissue sarcoma: an analysis from the OnCovid registry.

Background: To date, limited evidence exists on the impact of COVID-19 in patients with soft tissue sarcoma (STS), nor about the impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 morbidity and mortality in this specific population. Methods: We described COVID-19 morbidity and mortality among patients with STS across 'Omicron' (15 December 2021-31 January 2022), 'Pre-vaccination' (27 February 2020-30 November 2020), and 'Alpha-Delta' phase (01 December 2020-14 December 2021) using OnCovid registry participants (NCT04393974). Case fatality rate at 28 days (CFR28) and COVID-19 severity were also described according to the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status, while the impact of the receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy within 4 weeks prior to COVID-19 on clinical outcomes was assessed with Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) models adjusted for possible confounders. Results: Out of 3820 patients, 97 patients with STS were included. The median age at COVID-19 diagnosis was 56 years (range: 18-92), with 65 patients (67%) aged < 65 years and most patients had a low comorbidity burden (65, 67.0%). The most frequent primary tumor sites were the abdomen (56.7%) and the gynecological tract (12.4%). In total, 36 (37.1%) patients were on cytotoxic chemotherapy within 4 weeks prior to COVID-19. The overall CFR28 was 25.8%, with 38% oxygen therapy requirement, 34% rate of complications, and 32.3% of hospitalizations due to COVID-19. CFR28 (29.5%, 21.4%, and 12.5%) and all indicators of COVID-19 severity demonstrated a trend toward a numerical improvement across the pandemic phases. Similarly, vaccinated patients demonstrated numerically improved CFR28 (16.7% versus 27.7%) and COVID-19 morbidity compared with unvaccinated patients. Patients who were on chemotherapy experienced comparable CFR28 (19.4% versus 26.0%, p = 0.4803), hospitalizations (50.0% versus 44.4%, p = 0.6883), complication rates (30.6% versus 34.0%, p = 0.7381), and oxygen therapy requirement (28.1% versus 40.0%, p = 0.2755) compared to those who were not on anticancer therapy at COVID-19, findings further confirmed by the IPTW-fitted multivariable analysis. Conclusion: In this study, we demonstrate an improvement in COVID-19 outcomes in patients with STS over time. Recent exposure to chemotherapy does not impact COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and SARS-CoV-2 vaccination confers protection against adverse outcomes from COVID-19 in this patient population.

An analysis from the OnCovid registry on the impact of chemotherapy and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines on clinical outcomes of patients with soft tissue sarcoma and COVID-19 Soft tissue sarcomas (STS) are a group of rare and aggressive tumours, usually treated with high dose cytotoxic chemotherapy. To date no clear evidence exists on the impact of COVID-19 in patients with STS, nor on the potential impact of recent chemotherapy and prior SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in this specific patient population. This is the 1st study to show COVID-19 outcomes in patients with STS, highlighting a substantial vaccine efficacy with no negative impact of recent chemotherapy on COVID-19 outcomes.

Health-related quality of life in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer following metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy: Real-world data from the E2-RADIatE OligoCare cohort.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in men with oligometastatic prostate cancer (PCa) using real-world data from the OligoCare cohort. Materials and methods: OligoCare is a pragmatic, observational cohort designed to assess the impact of metastases-directed SBRT on patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD). We report an interim analyses of the secondary endpoint HRQoL, assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30, within six months of metastases-directed SBRT for oligometastatic disease in men with PCa among the first 1600 registered patients. HRQoL data collection was optional within the OligoCare cohort. To compare HRQoL between baseline and first follow-up assessment, a Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used. A multiple linear regression model was used to explore the HRQoL associations with predefined factors. Results: Out of the 1600 registered patients, 658 were treated for oligometastatic PCa, of which 233 had baseline QoL data and 132 patients had both baseline and follow-up HRQoL data. At baseline, most patients had a WHO performance status of 0 or 1 (87 %), were de-novo oligometastatic (79 %), had one metastasis (90 %), and had a good overall global health status (mean 80.81, SD16.11, IQR 75-92). 51 % received hormonal therapy as concomitant systemic treatment. Patients with comorbidities as assessed by the Charlson Comorbidity index had a worse global health status at baseline (-4.88, 95 % CI:-9.35, -0.42). No clinically meaningful significant difference in global health status was observed at first assessment following SBRT (median 3.0 months) compared with baseline (mean difference 2.27, 95 % CI:-1.54, 6.08). Upon evaluating the proportions, meaningful clinically important differences (a 10-point or more difference) was observed in, 17 % and 11 % of the patients reporting deterioration and improvement of global health status, respectively. Conclusion: Metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy had no negative impact on global HRQoL within the first six months after treatment.

AllergoOncology: Biomarkers and refined classification for research in the allergy and glioma nexus-A joint EAACI-EANO position paper.

Epidemiological studies have explored the relationship between allergic diseases and cancer risk or prognosis in AllergoOncology. Some studies suggest an inverse association, but uncertainties remain, including in IgE-mediated diseases and glioma. Allergic disease stems from a Th2-biased immune response to allergens in predisposed atopic individuals. Allergic disorders vary in phenotype, genotype and endotype, affecting their pathophysiology. Beyond clinical manifestation and commonly used clinical markers, there is ongoing research to identify novel biomarkers for allergy diagnosis, monitoring, severity assessment and treatment. Gliomas, the most common and diverse brain tumours, have in parallel undergone changes in classification over time, with specific molecular biomarkers defining glioma subtypes. Gliomas exhibit a complex tumour-immune interphase and distinct immune microenvironment features. Immunotherapy and targeted therapy hold promise for primary brain tumour treatment, but require more specific and effective approaches. Animal studies indicate allergic airway inflammation may delay glioma progression. This collaborative European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) and European Association of Neuro-Oncology (EANO) Position Paper summarizes recent advances and emerging biomarkers for refined allergy and adult-type diffuse glioma classification to inform future epidemiological and clinical studies. Future research is needed to enhance our understanding of immune-glioma interactions to ultimately improve patient prognosis and survival.

Clinical Characterization of Patients Diagnosed with Prostate Cancer and Undergoing Conservative Management: A PIONEER Analysis Based on Big Data.

BACKGROUND: Conservative management is an option for prostate cancer (PCa) patients either with the objective of delaying or even avoiding curative therapy, or to wait until palliative treatment is needed. PIONEER, funded by the European Commission Innovative Medicines Initiative, aims at improving PCa care across Europe through the application of big data analytics. OBJECTIVE: To describe the clinical characteristics and long-term outcomes of PCa patients on conservative management by using an international large network of real-world data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: From an initial cohort of >100 000 000 adult individuals included in eight databases evaluated during a virtual study-a-thon hosted by PIONEER, we identified newly diagnosed PCa cases (n = 527 311). Among those, we selected patients who did not receive curative or palliative treatment within 6 mo from diagnosis (n = 123 146). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Patient and disease characteristics were reported. The number of patients who experienced the main study outcomes was quantified for each stratum and the overall cohort. Kaplan-Meier analyses were used to estimate the distribution of time to event data. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: The most common comorbidities were hypertension (35-73%), obesity (9.2-54%), and type 2 diabetes (11-28%). The rate of PCa-related symptomatic progression ranged between 2.6% and 6.2%. Hospitalization (12-25%) and emergency department visits (10-14%) were common events during the 1st year of follow-up. The probability of being free from both palliative and curative treatments decreased during follow-up. Limitations include a lack of information on patients and disease characteristics and on treatment intent. CONCLUSIONS: Our results allow us to better understand the current landscape of patients with PCa managed with conservative treatment. PIONEER offers a unique opportunity to characterize the baseline features and outcomes of PCa patients managed conservatively using real-world data. PATIENT SUMMARY: Up to 25% of men with prostate cancer (PCa) managed conservatively experienced hospitalization and emergency department visits within the 1st year after diagnosis; 6% experienced PCa-related symptoms. The probability of receiving therapies for PCa decreased according to time elapsed after the diagnosis.

Previous immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy is associated with decreased COVID-19-related hospitalizations and complications in patients with cancer: Results of a propensity-matched analysis of the OnCovid registry.

OBJECTIVES: To date, studies have not provided definitive answers regarding whether previous immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) treatment alters outcomes for cancer patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The OnCovid registry (NCT04393974) was searched from February 27, 2020, to January 31, 2022, for patients who received systemic anti-cancer therapy in the 4 weeks before laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis. Propensity-score matching using country, vaccination status, primary tumor type, sex, age, comorbidity burden, tumor stage, and remission status investigated differences in predefined clinical outcomes comparing those who had or had not received ICIs. RESULTS: Of 3523 patients screened, 137 ICI-only and 1378 non-ICI met inclusion criteria. Before matching, ICI patients were older, male, enrolled at centers in Italy, and had histories of smoking, thoracic cancers, advanced cancer stages, and active malignancies (P ≤0.02). After matching, there were 120 ICI and 322 non-ICI patients. ICI patients had no differences (odds ratio: 95% CI) in presenting COVID-19 symptoms (0.69: 0.37-1.28), receipt of COVID-specific therapy (0.88: 0.54-1.41), 14-day (0.95: 0.56-1.61), or 28-day (0.79: 0.48-1.29) mortalities. However, ICI patients required less COVID-19-related hospitalization (0.37: 0.21-0.67) and oxygen therapy (0.51: 0.31-0.83) and developed fewer complications (0.57: 0.36-0.92). CONCLUSION: In this propensity-score matched analysis, previous ICI therapy did not worsen and potentially improved COVID-19 outcomes in patients with cancer.

Research protocol to identify progression and death amongst patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer treated with available treatments: PIONEER IMI's "big data for better outcomes" program.

Androgen deprivation therapy-based with or without first-generation anti-androgens, was the standard of care for patients with metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) for decades. However, the development of docetaxel chemotherapy and new androgen receptor-targeted agents, abiraterone acetate and prednisolone, apalutamide , enzalutamide and darolutamide (in combination with docetaxel chemotherapy) has proven that combination of treatments is more effective. Recently, intensification therapy, so-called "triplets", have emerged in the armamentarium of mHSPC treatment. Metastatic disease is a clinical state that remains poorly understood. The optimal diagnostic and management of patients with mHSPC are changing thanks to the development of new imaging techniques and therapies. The primary objective of this study is to develop and validate a predictive model for the occurrence of symptomatic progression, initiation of new treatments and death amongst patients with mHSPC treated with one of the approved treatment plans, on characteristics present at admission.

COmparing Urolift and Standard Transurethral resection of prostate Ahead of Radiotherapy in men with urinary symptoms secondary to prostate enlargement in Southwest London and North Cumbria (CO-STAR): a study protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing prostate radiotherapy with an enlarged prostate can have short-term and long-term urinary complications. Currently, transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) is the mainstay surgical intervention for men with urinary symptoms due to an enlarged prostate prior to radiotherapy. UroLift (NeoTract, Pleasanton, CA, USA) is a recent minimally invasive alternative, widely used in benign disease but is untested in men with prostate cancer. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, two-arm study designed in collaboration with a Patient Reference Group to assess the feasibility of randomising men with prostate cancer and coexisting urinary symptoms due to prostate enlargement to TURP or UroLift ahead of radiotherapy. 45 patients will be enrolled and randomised (1:1) using a computer-generated programme to TURP or UroLift. Recruitment and retention will be assessed over a 12 month period. Information on clinical outcomes, adverse events and costs will be collected. Clinical outcomes and patient reported outcome measures will be measured at baseline, 6 weeks postintervention and 3 months following radiotherapy. A further 12 in-depth interviews will be conducted with a subset of patients to assess acceptability using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Descriptive analysis on all outcomes will be performed using Stata (StataCorp V.2021). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial has been approved by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) NHS Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales (HCRW). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national meetings and disseminated to patients via social media, charity and hospital websites. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05840549.

Real World Data Studies of Antineoplastic Drugs: How Can They Be Improved to Steer Everyday Use in the Clinic?

There is a growing interest in real world evidence when developing antineoplastic drugs owing to the shorter length of time and low costs compared to randomised controlled trials. External validity of studies in the regulatory phase can be enhanced by complementing randomised controlled trials with real world evidence. Furthermore, the use of real world evidence ensures the inclusion of patients often excluded from randomised controlled trials such as the elderly, certain ethnicities or those from certain geographical areas. This review explores approaches in which real world data may be integrated with randomised controlled trials. One approach is by using big data, especially when investigating drugs in the antineoplastic setting. This can even inform artificial intelligence thus ensuring faster and more precise diagnosis and treatment decisions. Pragmatic trials also offer an approach to examine the effectiveness of novel antineoplastic drugs without evading the benefits of randomised controlled trials. A well-designed pragmatic trial would yield results with high external validity by employing a simple study design with a large sample size and diverse settings. Although randomised controlled trials can determine efficacy of antineoplastic drugs, effectiveness in the real world may differ. The need for pragmatic trials to help guide healthcare decision-making led to the development of trials within cohorts (TWICs). TWICs make use of cohorts to conduct multiple randomised controlled trials while maintaining characteristics of real world data in routine clinical practice. Although real world data is often affected by incomplete data and biases such as selection and unmeasured biases, the use of big data and pragmatic approaches can improve the use of real world data in the development of antineoplastic drugs that can in turn steer decision-making in clinical practice.

The impact of 2 weeks wait referral on survival of head and neck cancer patients.

PURPOSE: This study aims to evaluate the association between 2 weeks wait referral and survival in the head and neck cancer. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of consecutively discussed new head and neck cancer patients at large United Kingdom Cancer Alliance including two tertiary referral hospitals and two district general hospital. RESULTS: A total of 276 cancer patients were included for analysis. Patients referred under the 2 weeks wait had were seen and diagnosed sooner from referral (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001 respectively). However, this did not translate into better survival outcomes. No survival differences were seen between those patients that were managed within the proposed cancer targets and those that were not. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 weeks wait head and neck cancer pathway did not offer a survival advantage. Targeting the delay in referral as well as delay in treatment to prevent late-stage cancer presentation is paramount. Fulfilment of cancer time targets do not translate into better outcomes and should not be prioritised to clinical judgement.

A protocol for the development of core outcome sets for effectiveness trials and clinical audits in renal cell cancer (R-COS).

Background: There is inconsistency in outcomes collected in renal cell cancer (RCC) intervention effectiveness studies and variability in their definitions. This makes critical summaries of the evidence base difficult and sub-optimally informative for clinical practice guidelines and decision-making by patients and healthcare professionals. A solution is to develop a core outcome set (COS), an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be reported in all trials in a clinical area. Objectives: To develop three COS for (a) localised, (b) locally advanced and (c) metastatic. RCC study design participants and methods: The methods are the same for each of our three COS and are structured in two phases. Phase 1 identifies potentially relevant outcomes by conducting both a systematic literature review and patient interviews (N ~ 30 patients). Qualitative data will be analysed using framework analysis. In phase 2, all outcomes identified in phase 1 will be entered in a modified eDelphi, whereby patients and healthcare professionals (50 of each) will score each outcome's importance (Likert scale from 1 [not important] to 9 [critically important]). Outcomes scored in the 7-9 range by ≥70% and 1-3 by ≤15% will be regarded as 'consensus in', and the vice versa of this will constitute 'consensus out'. All other combinations will be regarded as equivocal and discussed at consensus meetings (including 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals) in order to vote on them and ratify the results of the eDelphi. Discussion: The R-COS will reduce outcome reporting heterogeneity and improve the evidence base for RCC. Study registration: The study is registered with the COMET initiative: https://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1406.