CompARE: study protocol for a phase III randomised controlled platform trial comparing alternative regimens for escalating treatment of intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with intermediate and high-risk oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) have poorer response to standard treatment and poorer overall survival compared to low-risk OPC. CompARE is designed to test alternative approaches to intensified treatment for these patients to improve survival. METHODS: CompARE is a pragmatic phase III, open-label, multicenter randomised controlled trial with an adaptive multi-arm, multi-stage design and an integrated QuinteT Recruitment Intervention. Eligible OPC patients include those with human papillomavirus (HPV) negative, T1-T4, N1-N3 or T3-4, N0, or HPV positive N3, T4, or current smokers (or ≥ 10 pack years previous smoking history) with T1-T4, N2b-N3. CompARE was originally designed with four arms (one control [arm 1] and three experimental: arm 2-induction chemotherapy followed by arm 1; arm 3-dose-escalated radiotherapy plus concomitant cisplatin; and arm 4-resection of primary followed by arm 1). The three original experimental arms have been closed to recruitment and a further experimental arm opened (arm 5-induction durvalumab followed by arm 1 and then adjuvant durvalumab). Currently recruiting are arm 1 (control): standard treatment of 3-weekly cisplatin 100 mg/m2 or weekly 40 mg/m2 with intensity-modulated radiotherapy using 70 Gy in 35 fractions ± neck dissection determined by clinical and radiological assessment 3 months post-treatment, and arm 5 (intervention): one cycle of induction durvalumab 1500 mg followed by standard treatment then durvalumab 1500 mg every 4 weeks for a total of 6 months. The definitive and interim primary outcome measures are overall survival time and event-free survival (EFS) time, respectively. Secondary outcome measures include quality of life, toxicity, swallowing outcomes, feeding tube incidence, surgical complication rates, and cost-effectiveness. The design anticipates that after approximately 7 years, 84 required events will have occurred to enable analysis of the definitive primary outcome measure for this comparison. Planned interim futility analyses using EFS will also be performed. DISCUSSION: CompARE is designed to be efficient and cost-effective in response to new data, emerging new treatments or difficulties, with the aim of bringing new treatment options for these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN41478539 . Registered on 29 April 2015.

The future of cancer care in the UK-time for a radical and sustainable National Cancer Plan.

Cancer affects one in two people in the UK and the incidence is set to increase. The UK National Health Service is facing major workforce deficits and cancer services have struggled to recover after the COVID-19 pandemic, with waiting times for cancer care becoming the worst on record. There are severe and widening disparities across the country and survival rates remain unacceptably poor for many cancers. This is at a time when cancer care has become increasingly complex, specialised, and expensive. The current crisis has deep historic roots, and to be reversed, the scale of the challenge must be acknowledged and a fundamental reset is required. The loss of a dedicated National Cancer Control Plan in England and Wales, poor operationalisation of plans elsewhere in the UK, and the closure of the National Cancer Research Institute have all added to a sense of strategic misdirection. The UK finds itself at a crossroads, where the political decisions of governments, the cancer community, and research funders will determine whether we can, together, achieve equitable, affordable, and high-quality cancer care for patients that is commensurate with our wealth, and position our outcomes among the best in the world. In this Policy Review, we describe the challenges and opportunities that are needed to develop radical, yet sustainable plans, which are comprehensive, evidence-based, integrated, patient-outcome focused, and deliver value for money.

Dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy versus standard intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with head and neck cancer (DARS): a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most newly diagnosed oropharyngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers are treated with chemoradiotherapy with curative intent but at the consequence of adverse effects on quality of life. We aimed to investigate if dysphagia-optimised intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DO-IMRT) reduced radiation dose to the dysphagia and aspiration related structures and improved swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. METHODS: DARS was a parallel-group, phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 22 radiotherapy centres in Ireland and the UK. Participants were aged 18 years and older, had T1-4, N0-3, M0 oropharyngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer, a WHO performance status of 0 or 1, and no pre-existing swallowing dysfunction. Participants were centrally randomly assigned (1:1) using a minimisation algorithm (balancing factors: centre, chemotherapy use, tumour type, American Joint Committee on Cancer tumour stage) to receive DO-IMRT or standard IMRT. Participants and speech language therapists were masked to treatment allocation. Radiotherapy was given in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. Dose was 65 Gy to primary and nodal tumour and 54 Gy to remaining pharyngeal subsite and nodal areas at risk of microscopic disease. For DO-IMRT, the volume of the superior and middle pharyngeal constrictor muscle or inferior pharyngeal constrictor muscle lying outside the high-dose target volume had a mandatory 50 Gy mean dose constraint. The primary endpoint was MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score 12 months after radiotherapy, analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population that included only patients who completed a 12-month assessment; safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one fraction of radiotherapy. The study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN25458988, and is complete. FINDINGS: From June 24, 2016, to April 27, 2018, 118 patients were registered, 112 of whom were randomly assigned (56 to each treatment group). 22 (20%) participants were female and 90 (80%) were male; median age was 57 years (IQR 52-62). Median follow-up was 39·5 months (IQR 37·8-50·0). Patients in the DO-IMRT group had significantly higher MDADI composite scores at 12 months than patients in the standard IMRT group (mean score 77·7 [SD 16·1] vs 70·6 [17·3]; mean difference 7·2 [95% CI 0·4-13·9]; p=0·037). 25 serious adverse events (16 serious adverse events assessed as unrelated to study treatment [nine in the DO-IMRT group and seven in the standard IMRT group] and nine serious adverse reactions [two vs seven]) were reported in 23 patients. The most common grade 3-4 late adverse events were hearing impairment (nine [16%] of 55 in the DO-IMRT group vs seven [13%] of 55 in the standard IMRT group), dry mouth (three [5%] vs eight [15%]), and dysphagia (three [5%] vs eight [15%]). There were no treatment-related deaths. INTERPRETATION: Our findings suggest that DO-IMRT improves patient-reported swallowing function compared with standard IMRT. DO-IMRT should be considered a new standard of care for patients receiving radiotherapy for pharyngeal cancers. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

A population-scale temporal case-control evaluation of COVID-19 disease phenotype and related outcome rates in patients with cancer in England (UKCCP).

Patients with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and mortality following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. However, the SARS-CoV-2 phenotype evolution in patients with cancer since 2020 has not previously been described. We therefore evaluated SARS-CoV-2 on a UK populationscale from 01/11/2020-31/08/2022, assessing case-outcome rates of hospital assessment(s), intensive care admission and mortality. We observed that the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype has become less severe in patients with cancer and the non-cancer population. Case-hospitalisation rates for patients with cancer dropped from 30.58% in early 2021 to 7.45% in 2022 while case-mortality rates decreased from 20.53% to 3.25%. However, the risk of hospitalisation and mortality remains 2.10x and 2.54x higher in patients with cancer, respectively. Overall, the SARS-CoV-2 disease phenotype is less severe in 2022 compared to 2020 but patients with cancer remain at higher risk than the non-cancer population. Patients with cancer must therefore be empowered to live more normal lives, to see loved ones and families, while also being safeguarded with expanded measures to reduce the risk of transmission.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between Radiation Therapy Treatment Volume and Patient Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Evidence of a volume-outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. RESULTS: The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume-outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year). CONCLUSIONS: An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume-outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered.

Consensus statement on the management of incidentally discovered FDG avid thyroid nodules in patients being investigated for other cancers.

With the widespread use of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG PET/CT) in the investigation and staging of cancers, incidental discovery of FDG-avid thyroid nodules is becoming increasingly common, with a reported incidence in the range 1%-4% of FDG PET/CT scans. The risk of malignancy in an incidentally discovered FDG avid thyroid nodule is not clear due to selection bias in reported retrospective series but is likely to be less than 15%. Even in cases where the nodule is found to be malignant, the majority will be differentiated thyroid cancers with an excellent prognosis even without treatment. If, due to index cancer diagnosis, age and co-morbidities, it is unlikely that the patient will survive 5 years, further investigation of an incidental FDG avid thyroid nodule is unlikely to be warranted. We provide a consensus statement on the circumstances in which further investigation of FDG avid thyroid nodules with ultrasound and fine needle aspiration might be appropriate.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Spike Protein Antibody Vaccine Response With Infection Severity in Patients With Cancer: A National COVID Cancer Cross-sectional Evaluation.

Importance: Accurate identification of patient groups with the lowest level of protection following COVID-19 vaccination is important to better target resources and interventions for the most vulnerable populations. It is not known whether SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing has clinical utility for high-risk groups, such as people with cancer. Objective: To evaluate whether spike protein antibody vaccine response (COV-S) following COVID-19 vaccination is associated with the risk of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection or hospitalization among patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based cross-sectional study of patients with cancer from the UK as part of the National COVID Cancer Antibody Survey. Adults with a known or reported cancer diagnosis who had completed their primary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination schedule were included. This analysis ran from September 1, 2021, to March 4, 2022, a period covering the expansion of the UK's third-dose vaccination booster program. Interventions: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 COV-S antibody test (Elecsys; Roche). Main Outcomes and Measures: Odds of SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: The evaluation comprised 4249 antibody test results from 3555 patients with cancer and 294 230 test results from 225 272 individuals in the noncancer population. The overall cohort of 228 827 individuals (patients with cancer and the noncancer population) comprised 298 479 antibody tests. The median age of the cohort was in the age band of 40 and 49 years and included 182 741 test results (61.22%) from women and 115 737 (38.78%) from men. There were 279 721 tests (93.72%) taken by individuals identifying as White or White British. Patients with cancer were more likely to have undetectable anti-S antibody responses than the general population (199 of 4249 test results [4.68%] vs 376 of 294 230 [0.13%]; P < .001). Patients with leukemia or lymphoma had the lowest antibody titers. In the cancer cohort, following multivariable correction, patients who had an undetectable antibody response were at much greater risk for SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infection (odds ratio [OR], 3.05; 95% CI, 1.96-4.72; P < .001) and SARS-CoV-2-related hospitalization (OR, 6.48; 95% CI, 3.31-12.67; P < .001) than individuals who had a positive antibody response. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that COV-S antibody testing allows the identification of patients with cancer who have the lowest level of antibody-derived protection from COVID-19. This study supports larger evaluations of SARS-CoV-2 antibody testing. Prevention of SARS-CoV-2 transmission to patients with cancer should be prioritized to minimize impact on cancer treatments and maximize quality of life for individuals with cancer during the ongoing pandemic.

Impact of centralization of prostate cancer services on the choice of radical treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of centralization of prostate cancer surgery and radiotherapy services on the choice of prostate cancer treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This national population-based study used linked cancer registry data and administrative hospital-level data for all 16 621 patients who were diagnosed between 1 January 2017 and 31 December 2018 with intermediate-risk prostate cancer and who underwent radical prostatectomy (RP) or radical radiation therapy (RT) in the English National Health Service (NHS). Travel times by car to treating centres were estimated using a geographic information system. We used logistic regression to assess the impact of the relative proximity of alternative treatment options on the type of treatment received, with adjustment for patient characteristics. RESULTS: Of the 78 NHS hospitals that provide RT or RP for prostate cancer, 41% provide both, 36% provide RT and 23% provide RP. Compared to patients who had both treatment options available at their nearest centre where overall 57% of patients received RT and 43% RP, patients were less likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RP only and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RT was >15 min (52% of patients received RT and 48% RP%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70 (0.58-0.85); P < 0.001). Conversely, patients were more likely to receive RT if their nearest centre offered RT and the extra travel time to a hospital providing RP was >15 min (63% of patients received RT and 37% RP, OR 1.23 (1.08-1.40); P < 0.001). There was a negligible impact on the type of treatment received if centres providing alternative treatment options were ≤15-min travel time from each other. CONCLUSION: The relative proximity of prostate cancer treatment options to a patient's residence is an independent predictor for the type of radical treatment received. Centralization policies for prostate cancer should not focus on one treatment modality but should consider all treatments to avoid a negative impact on treatment choice.

COVID-19: Third dose booster vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough coronavirus infection, hospitalisations and death in patients with cancer: A population-based study.

PURPOSE: People living with cancer and haematological malignancies are at an increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. Coronavirus third dose vaccine boosters are proposed to boost waning immune responses in immunocompromised individuals and increase coronavirus protection; however, their effectiveness has not yet been systematically evaluated. METHODS: This study is a population-scale real-world evaluation of the United Kingdom's third dose vaccine booster programme for cancer patients from 8th December 2020 to 7th December 2021. The cancer cohort comprises individuals from Public Health England's national cancer dataset, excluding individuals less than 18 years. A test-negative case-control design was used to assess the third dose booster vaccine effectiveness. Multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to compare risk in the cancer cohort relative to the general population. RESULTS: The cancer cohort comprised of 2,258,553 tests from 361,098 individuals. Third dose boosters were evaluated by reference to 87,039,743 polymerase chain reaction coronavirus tests. Vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections, symptomatic infections, coronavirus hospitalisation and death in cancer patients were 59.1%, 62.8%, 80.5% and 94.5%, respectively. Lower vaccine effectiveness was associated with a cancer diagnosis within 12 months, lymphoma, recent systemic anti-cancer therapy (SACT) or radiotherapy. Patients with lymphoma had low levels of protection from symptomatic disease. In spite of third dose boosters, following multivariable adjustment, individuals with cancer remain at an increased risk of coronavirus hospitalisation and death compared to the population control (OR 3.38, 3.01, respectively. p < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Third dose boosters are effective for most individuals with cancer, increasing protection from coronavirus. However, their effectiveness is heterogenous and lower than the general population. Many patients with cancer will remain at the increased risk of coronavirus infections even after 3 doses. In the case of patients with lymphoma, there is a particularly strong disparity of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infection and severe disease. Breakthrough infections will disrupt cancer care and treatment with potentially adverse consequences on survival outcomes. The data support the role of vaccine boosters in preventing severe disease, and further pharmacological intervention to prevent transmission and aid viral clearance to limit the disruption of cancer care as the delivery of care continues to evolve during the coronavirus pandemic.

Methodology for the development of National Multidisciplinary Management Recommendations using a multi-stage meta-consensus initiative.

BACKGROUND: Methods for developing national recommendations vary widely. The successful adoption of new guidance into routine practice is dependent on buy-in from the clinicians delivering day-to-day patient care and must be considerate of existing resource constraints, as well as being aspirational in its scope. This initiative aimed to produce guidelines for the management of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary (HNSCCUP) using a novel methodology to maximise the likelihood of national adoption. METHODS: A voluntary steering committee oversaw 3 phases of development: 1) clarification of topic areas, data collection and assimilation, including systematic reviews and a National Audit of Practice; 2) a National Consensus Day, presenting data from the above to generate candidate consensus statements for indicative voting by attendees; and 3) a National Delphi Exercise seeking agreement on the candidate consensus statements, including representatives from all 58 UK Head and Neck Multidisciplinary Teams (MDT). Methodology was published online in advance of the Consensus Day and Delphi exercise. RESULTS: Four topic areas were identified to frame guideline development. The National Consensus Day was attended by 227 participants (54 in-person and 173 virtual). Results from 7 new systematic reviews were presented, alongside 7 expert stakeholder presentations and interim data from the National Audit and from relevant ongoing Clinical Trials. This resulted in the generation of 35 statements for indicative voting by attendees which, following steering committee ratification, led to 30 statements entering the National Delphi exercise. After 3 rounds (with a further statement added after round 1), 27 statements had reached 'strong agreement' (n = 25, 2, 0 for each round, respectively), a single statement achieved 'agreement' only (round 3), and 'no agreement' could be reached for 3 statements (response rate 98% for each round). Subsequently, 28 statements were adopted into the National MDT Guidelines for HNSCCUP. CONCLUSIONS: The described methodology demonstrated an effective multi-phase strategy for the development of national practice recommendations. It may serve as a cost-effective model for future guideline development for controversial or rare conditions where there is a paucity of available evidence or where there is significant variability in management practices across a healthcare service.

Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 breakthrough infections in patients with cancer (UKCCEP): a population-based test-negative case-control study.

BACKGROUND: People with cancer are at increased risk of hospitalisation and death following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Therefore, we aimed to conduct one of the first evaluations of vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with cancer at a population level. METHODS: In this population-based test-negative case-control study of the UK Coronavirus Cancer Evaluation Project (UKCCEP), we extracted data from the UKCCEP registry on all SARS-CoV-2 PCR test results (from the Second Generation Surveillance System), vaccination records (from the National Immunisation Management Service), patient demographics, and cancer records from England, UK, from Dec 8, 2020, to Oct 15, 2021. Adults (aged ≥18 years) with cancer in the UKCCEP registry were identified via Public Health England's Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset between Jan 1, 2018, and April 30, 2021, and comprised the cancer cohort. We constructed a control population cohort from adults with PCR tests in the UKCCEP registry who were not contained within the Rapid Cancer Registration Dataset. The coprimary endpoints were overall vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections after the second dose (positive PCR COVID-19 test) and vaccine effectiveness against breakthrough infections at 3-6 months after the second dose in the cancer cohort and control population. FINDINGS: The cancer cohort comprised 377 194 individuals, of whom 42 882 had breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. The control population consisted of 28 010 955 individuals, of whom 5 748 708 had SARS-CoV-2 breakthrough infections. Overall vaccine effectiveness was 69·8% (95% CI 69·8-69·9) in the control population and 65·5% (65·1-65·9) in the cancer cohort. Vaccine effectiveness at 3-6 months was lower in the cancer cohort (47·0%, 46·3-47·6) than in the control population (61·4%, 61·4-61·5). INTERPRETATION: COVID-19 vaccination is effective for individuals with cancer, conferring varying levels of protection against breakthrough infections. However, vaccine effectiveness is lower in patients with cancer than in the general population. COVID-19 vaccination for patients with cancer should be used in conjunction with non-pharmacological strategies and community-based antiviral treatment programmes to reduce the risk that COVID-19 poses to patients with cancer. FUNDING: University of Oxford, University of Southampton, University of Birmingham, Department of Health and Social Care, and Blood Cancer UK.

Biopsy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: results of a multicentre UK audit.

BACKGROUND: Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is commonly diagnosed using non-invasive radiological criteria (NIRC) defined by the European Association for the Study of the Liver or the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases. In 2017, The National Institute for Clinical Excellence mandated histological confirmation of disease to authorise the use of sorafenib in the UK. METHODS: This was a prospective multicentre audit in which patients suitable for sorafenib were identified at multidisciplinary meetings. The primary analysis cohort (PAC) was defined by the presence of Child-Pugh class A liver disease and performance status 0-2. Clinical, radiological and histological data were reported locally and collected on a standardised case report form. RESULTS: Eleven centres reported 418 cases, of which 361 comprised the PAC. Overall, 76% had chronic liver disease and 66% were cirrhotic. The diagnostic imaging was computed tomography in 71%, magnetic resonance imaging in 27% and 2% had both. Pre-existing histology was available in 45 patients and 270 underwent a new biopsy, which confirmed HCC in 93.4%. Alternative histological diagnoses included cholangiocarcinoma (CC) and combined HCC-CC. In cirrhotic patients, NIRC criteria had a sensitivity of 65.4% and a positive predictive value of 91.4% to detect HCC. Two patients (0.7%) experienced mild post-biopsy bleeding. CONCLUSION: The diagnostic biopsy is safe and feasible for most patients eligible for systemic therapy.

Dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy in patients with locally advanced laryngeal and hypopharyngeal cancers: ART DECO, a phase III randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Radical (chemo)radiotherapy offers potentially curative treatment for patients with locally advanced laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. We aimed to show that dose-escalated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (DE-IMRT) improved locoregional control. METHODS: We performed a phase III open-label randomised controlled trial in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer (AJCC III-IVa/b, TNM 7). Patients were randomised (1:1) to DE-IMRT or standard dose IMRT (ST-IMRT) using a minimisation algorithm, balancing for centre, tumour site, nodal status and chemotherapy use. DE-IMRT was 67.2 gray (Gy) in 28 fractions (f) to the primary tumour and 56Gy/28f to at-risk nodes; ST-IMRT was 65Gy/30f to primary tumour and 54Gy/30f to at-risk nodes. Suitable patients received 2 cycles of concomitant cisplatin and up to 3 cycles of platinum-based induction chemotherapy. The primary end-point was time to locoregional failure analysed by intention-to-treat analysis using competing risk methodology. FINDINGS: Between February 2011 and October 2015, 276 patients (138 ST-IMRT; 138 DE-IMRT) were randomised. A preplanned interim futility analysis met the criterion for early closure. After a median follow-up of 47.9 months (interquartile range 37.5-60.5), there were locoregional failures in 38 of 138 (27.5%) ST-IMRT patients and 42 of 138 (30.4%) DE-IMRT patients; an adjusted subhazard ratio of 1.16 (95% confidence interval: 0.74-1.83, p = 0.519) indicated no evidence of benefit with DE-IMRT. Acute grade 2 pharyngeal mucositis was reported more frequently with DE-IMRT than with ST-IMRT (42% vs. 32%). No differences in grade ≥3 acute or late toxicity rates were seen. CONCLUSION: DE-IMRT did not improve locoregional control in patients with laryngeal or hypopharyngeal cancer. The trial is registered: ISRCTN01483375.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on radiotherapy services in England, UK: a population-based study.

BACKGROUND: The indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer outcomes is of increasing concern. However, the extent to which key treatment modalities have been affected is unclear. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiotherapy activity in England. METHODS: In this population-based study, data relating to all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the English NHS, between Feb 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020, were extracted from the National Radiotherapy Dataset. Changes in mean weekly radiotherapy courses, attendances (reflecting fractions), and fractionation patterns following the start of the UK lockdown were compared with corresponding months in 2019 overall, for specific diagnoses, and across age groups. The significance of changes in radiotherapy activity during lockdown was examined using interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis. FINDINGS: In 2020, mean weekly radiotherapy courses fell by 19·9% in April, 6·2% in May, and 11·6% in June compared with corresponding months in 2019. A relatively greater fall was observed for attendances (29·1% in April, 31·4% in May, and 31·5% in June). These changes were significant on ITS analysis (p<0·0001). A greater reduction in treatment courses between 2019 and 2020 was seen for patients aged 70 years or older compared with those aged younger than 70 years (34·4% vs 7·3% in April). By diagnosis, the largest reduction from 2019 to 2020 in treatment courses was for prostate cancer (77·0% in April) and non-melanoma skin cancer (72·4% in April). Conversely, radiotherapy courses in April, 2020, compared with April, 2019, increased by 41·2% in oesophageal cancer, 64·2% in bladder cancer, and 36·3% in rectal cancer. Increased use of ultra-hypofractionated (26 Gy in five fractions) breast radiotherapy as a percentage of all courses (0·2% in April, 2019, to 60·6% in April, 2020; ITS p<0·0001) contributed to the substantial reduction in attendances. INTERPRETATION: Radiotherapy activity fell significantly, but use of hypofractionated regimens rapidly increased in the English NHS during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. An increase in treatments for some cancers suggests that radiotherapy compensated for reduced surgical activity. These data will assist health-care providers in understanding the indirect consequences of the pandemic and the role of radiotherapy services in minimising these consequences. FUNDING: None.

Ipsilateral neck radiotherapy in N2b well-lateralized tonsil cancer - Approach with caution.

BACKGROUND: Treatment of the uninvolved neck in well-lateralized tonsillar squamous cell carcinoma is controversial. We became concerned after a number of contralateral neck recurrences (CNRs) in patients receiving ipsilateral radiotherapy (RT). METHODS: This is a single center retrospective series including patients with well-lateralized tonsillar cancer treated with ipsilateral neck RT between 2004 and 2011. RESULTS: We identified 53 patients treated with ipsilateral neck RT during the study period. The rate of CNR was 7.5% (4 of 53). All four patients had p16-positive, T1, N2b, M0 tumors. The subgroup of patients with N2b disease (28 of 53) had a CNR of 14.3%. We subsequently switched to treat patients with N2b with bilateral neck RT. We analyzed the outcomes of 23 patients with N2b treated with bilateral neck intensity-modulated RT (IMRT) and observed no CNRs. CONCLUSIONS: We observed a higher than expected rate of CNR in the N2b population. Bilateral neck IMRT for these patients represents a safe alternative.

DARS: a phase III randomised multicentre study of dysphagia- optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) versus standard intensity- modulated radiotherapy (S-IMRT) in head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: Persistent dysphagia following primary chemoradiation (CRT) for head and neck cancers can have a devastating impact on patients' quality of life. Single arm studies have shown that the dosimetric sparing of critical swallowing structures such as the pharyngeal constrictor muscle and supraglottic larynx can translate to better functional outcomes. However, there are no current randomised studies to confirm the benefits of such swallow sparing strategies. The aim of Dysphagia/Aspiration at risk structures (DARS) trial is to determine whether reducing the dose to the pharyngeal constrictors with dysphagia-optimised intensity- modulated radiotherapy (Do-IMRT) will lead to an improvement in long- term swallowing function without having any detrimental impact on disease-specific survival outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN: The DARS trial (CRUK/14/014) is a phase III multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) for patients undergoing primary (chemo) radiotherapy for T1-4, N0-3, M0 pharyngeal cancers. Patients will be randomised (1:1 ratio) to either standard IMRT (S-IMRT) or Do-IMRT. Radiotherapy doses will be the same in both groups; however in patients allocated to Do-IMRT, irradiation of the pharyngeal musculature will be reduced by delivering IMRT identifying the pharyngeal muscles as organs at risk. The primary endpoint of the trial is the difference in the mean MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) composite score, a patient-reported outcome, measured at 12 months post radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints include prospective and longitudinal evaluation of swallow outcomes incorporating a range of subjective and objective assessments, quality of life measures, loco-regional control and overall survival. Patients and speech and language therapists (SLTs) will both be blinded to treatment allocation arm to minimise outcome-reporting bias. DISCUSSION: DARS is the first RCT investigating the effect of swallow sparing strategies on improving long-term swallowing outcomes in pharyngeal cancers. An integral part of the study is the multidimensional approach to swallowing assessment, providing robust data for the standardisation of future swallow outcome measures. A translational sub- study, which may lead to the development of future predictive and prognostic biomarkers, is also planned. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial register, ISRCTN25458988 (04/01/2016).