Anxiety and depression in patients with non-site-specific cancer symptoms: data from a rapid diagnostic clinic.

Background: Rapid diagnostic clinics (RDCs) provide a streamlined holistic pathway for patients presenting with non-site specific (NSS) symptoms concerning of malignancy. The current study aimed to: 1) assess the prevalence of anxiety and depression, and 2) identify a combination of patient characteristics and symptoms associated with severe anxiety and depression at Guy's and St Thomas' Foundation Trust (GSTT) RDC in Southeast London. Additionally, we compared standard statistical methods with machine learning algorithms for predicting severe anxiety and depression. Methods: Patients seen at GSTT RDC between June 2019 and January 2023 completed the General Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-8) questionnaires, at baseline. We used logistic regression (LR) and 2 machine learning (ML) algorithms (random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM)) to predict risk of severe anxiety and severe depression. The models were constructed using a set of sociodemographic and clinical variables. Results: A total of 1734 patients completed GAD-7 and PHQ-8 questionnaires. Of these, the mean age was 59 years (Standard Deviation: 15.5), and 61.5% (n:1067) were female. Prevalence of severe anxiety (GAD-7 score ≥15) was 13.8% and severe depression (PHQ-8 score≥20) was 9.3%. LR showed that a combination of previous mental health condition (PMH, Adjusted Odds Rario (AOR) 3.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.36-4.56), symptom duration >6 months (AOR 2.20; 95%CI 1.28-3.77), weight loss (AOR 1.88; 95% CI 1.36-2.61), progressive pain (AOR 1.71; 95%CI 1.26-2.32), and fatigue (AOR 1.36; 95%CI 1.01-1.84), was positively associated with severe anxiety. Likewise, a combination PMH condition (AOR 3.95; 95%CI 2.17-5.75), fatigue (AOR 2.11; 95%CI 1.47-3.01), symptom duration >6 months (AOR 1.98; 95%CI 1.06-3.68), weight loss (AOR 1.66; 95%CI 1.13-2.44), and progressive pain (AOR 1.50; 95%CI 1.04-2.16), was positively associated with severe depression. LR and SVM had highest accuracy levels for severe anxiety (LR: 86%, SVM: 85%) and severe depression (SVM: 89%, LR: 86%). Conclusion: High prevalence of severe anxiety and severe depression was found. PMH, fatigue, weight loss, progressive pain, and symptoms >6 months emerged as combined risk factors for both these psychological comorbidities. RDCs offer an opportunity to alleviate distress in patients with concerning symptoms by expediting diagnostic evaluations.

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.

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.

A cohort profile of the Graham Roberts study cohort.

Purpose: The Graham Roberts Study was initiated in 2018 and is the first Trials Within Cohorts (TwiCs) study for bladder cancer. Its purpose is to provide an infrastructure for answering a breadth of research questions, including clinical, mechanistic, and supportive care centred questions for bladder cancer patients. Participants: All consented patients are those aged 18 or older, able to provide signed informedconsent and have a diagnosis of new or recurrent bladder cancer. All patients are required to have completed a series of baseline questionnaires. The questionnaires are then sent out every 12 months and include information on demographics and medical history as well as questionnaires to collect information on quality of life, fatigue, depression, overall health, physical activity, and dietary habits. Clinical information such as tumor stage, grade and treatment has also been extracted for each patient. Findings to date: To date, a total of 125 bladder cancer patients have been consented onto the study with 106 filling in the baseline questionnaire. The cohort is made up of 75% newly diagnosed bladder cancer patients and 66% non-muscle invasive bladder cancer cases. At present, there is 1-year follow-up information for 70 patients, 2-year follow-up for 57 patients, 3-year follow-up for 47 patients and 4-year follow-up for 19 patients. Future plans: We plan to continue recruiting further patients into the cohort study. Using the data collected within the study, we hope to carry out independent research studies with a focus on quality of life. We are also committed to utilizing the Roberts Study Cohort to set up and commence an intervention. The future studies and trials carried out using the Roberts Cohort have the potential to identify and develop interventions that could improve the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of bladder cancer.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: As part of the PIONEER Consortium objectives, we have explored which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are available in relation to our previously defined clinician and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). DESIGN: We performed a systematic review to identify validated and non-validated studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched on 21 January 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Only quantitative studies were included. Single studies with fewer than 50 participants, published before 2014 and looking at outcomes which are not prioritised in the PIONEER core outcome set were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: After initial screening, we extracted data following the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of prognostic factor studies (CHARMS-PF) criteria and discussed the identified factors with a multidisciplinary expert group. The quality of the included papers was scored for applicability and risk of bias using validated tools such as PROBAST, Quality in Prognostic Studies and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2. RESULTS: The search identified 6604 studies, from which 489 DPFs were included. Sixty-four of those were internally or externally validated. However, only three studies on diagnostic and seven studies on prognostic factors had a low risk of bias and a low risk concerning applicability. CONCLUSION: Most of the DPFs identified require additional evaluation and validation in properly designed studies before they can be recommended for use in clinical practice. The PIONEER online search tool for DPFs for PCa will enable researchers to understand the quality of the current research and help them design future studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: There are no ethical implications.

Invadopodia play a role in prostate cancer progression.

BACKGROUND: Invadopodia, actin-rich structures that release metallo-proteases at the interface with extra-cellular matrix, in a punctate manner are thought to be important drivers of tumour invasion. Invadopodia formation has been observed in-vitro and in-vivo in numerous metastatic cell lines derived from multiple tumour types. However, prostate cancer cell lines have not been routinely reported to generate invadopodia and the few instances have always required external stimulation. METHODS: In this study, the invasive potential of primary prostate adenocarcinoma cell lines, which have never been fully characterised before, was investigated both in-vitro invadopodia assays and in-vivo zebrafish dissemination assay. Subsequently, circulating tumour cells from prostate cancer patients were isolated and tested in the invadopodia assay. RESULTS: Retention of E-cadherin and N-cadherin expression indicated a transitional state of EMT progression, consistent with the idea of partial EMT that has been frequently observed in aggressive prostate cancer. All cell lines tested were capable of spontaneous invadopodia formation and possess a significant degradative ability in-vitro under basal conditions. These cell lines were invasive in-vivo and produced visible metastasis in the zebrafish dissemination assay. Importantly we have proceeded to demonstrate that circulating tumour cells isolated from prostate cancer patients exhibit invadopodia-like structures and degrade matrix with visible puncta. This work supports a role for invadopodia activity as one of the mechanisms of dissemination employed by prostate cancer cells. CONCLUSION: The combination of studies presented here provide clear evidence that invadopodia activity can play a role in prostate cancer progression.

The Impact of COVID-19 on the Delivery of Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment at Guy's Cancer Centre.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the outcome of cancer patients undergoing systemic anti-cancer treatment (SACT) at our centre to help inform future clinical decision-making around SACT during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Patients receiving at least one episode of SACT for solid tumours at Guy's Cancer Centre between 1 March and 31 May 2020 and the same period in 2019 were included in the study. Data were collected on demographics, tumour type/stage, treatment type (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, biological-targeted) and SARS-CoV2 infection. RESULTS: A total of 2120 patients received SACT in 2020, compared to 2449 in 2019 (13% decrease). From 2019 to 2020, there was an increase in stage IV disease (62% vs. 72%), decrease in chemotherapy (42% vs. 34%), increase in immunotherapy (6% vs. 10%), but similar rates of biologically targeted treatments (37% vs. 38%). There was a significant increase in 1st and 2nd line treatments in 2020 (68% vs. 81%; p < 0.0001) and reduction in 3rd and subsequent lines (26% vs. 15%; p = 0.004) compared to 2019. Of the 2020 cohort, 2% patients developed SARS-CoV2 infections. CONCLUSIONS: These real-world data from a tertiary Cancer Centre suggest that despite the challenges faced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, SACT was able to be continued without any significant effects on the mortality of solid-tumour patients. There was a low rate (2%) of SARS-CoV-2 infection which is comparable to the 1.4%-point prevalence in our total cancer population.

Outcomes of head and neck cancer management from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the approach and outcomes from two cancer centres in Southern and Northern Europe during the first wave of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) of patients with head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS: Data collection was performed on a retrospective cohort of patients surgically treated for primary HNC between March and May 2020, using data from two tertiary hospitals: the European Institute of Oncology (Milan) and Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust (London). RESULTS: We included 77 patients with HNC. More patients with COVID-19 were taking angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and had Clavien-Dindo Classification grade I compared to negative patients, respectively (60% vs 22% [p = 0.058] and 40% vs 8% [p = 0.025]). Multivariate logistic regression analyses confirmed our data (p = 0.05 and 0.03, respectively). Sex and age were statistically significantly different (p = 0.05 and <0.001 respectively), showing more male patients (75% vs 53.66%, respectively) and more elderly patients in Italy than in the United Kingdom (patients aged >63 years: 69.44% vs 29.27%). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a large cohort of patients with HNC with nasopharyngeal swab during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic in Europe. Patients with HNC with COVID-19 appeared more likely to develop postsurgical complications and to be taking ACE inhibitors. The preventive measures adopted guaranteed the continuation of therapeutic surgical intervention.

Qualitative Analysis of Interviews and Focus Groups Exploring Factors Contributing to Adherence to GnRH Agonists in Men with Prostate Cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Side effects from the prolonged use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists may lead to nonadherence to the treatment in men with advanced prostate cancer (PCa). We investigated the reasons contributing to nonadherence to GnRH agonists through interviews with men with PCa and focus groups with their health care professionals. DATA SOURCES: The three stages of the study were validation of themes, interviews with men on GnRH agonists, and focus groups with oncology specialists and clinical nurse specialists. An experienced oncologist validated factors contributing to nonadherence identified from the literature. A total of 10 men with PCa were recruited from a large teaching hospital and were interviewed on a one-to-one basis using a topic guide. In stage three, two separate focus groups were held with oncology specialists and clinical nurse specialists treating men with PCa. The interviews and focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Initial codes identified from stage three were grouped into themes and thematically analyzed. CONCLUSION: Themes identified from the interviews and focus groups influencing adherence to treatment were side effects of treatment, patient belief system, benefits outweigh harm, quality of life over quantity of life, social support, and patient-clinician relationship. Although side effects such as hot flushes and loss of libido were sometimes overwhelming for many, these men felt that treatment benefits outweighed harm. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Reasons leading to nonadherence can be multifactorial and unique to each patient. Employing different strategies by health care professionals may lead to the eventual acceptance of treatment, while also acknowledging their reasons for nonadherence.

"Something Good Has to Come Out of the Horror": A Qualitative Examination of Cancer Survivors' Attitudes Towards Participation in Research During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: The first year of the COVID-19 pandemic has been highly disruptive for people with cancer. Furthermore, it has been shown that accrual to cancer trials dropped substantially in 2020. Building on findings from a previous pilot survey, the present study used qualitative methods to gain insights into attitudes towards participation in research studies amongst people who have experienced cancer, in the context of the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and Methods: We interviewed 13 participants from the UK, who were purposively sampled, including a broad sample of cancer types, and a mixture of individuals who have and have not taken part in research previously. Participants underwent semi-structured interviews (median interview duration: 47 min) and were asked open-ended questions about their attitude towards and experiences with COVID-19, and their attitude towards research participation. In addition to this, prompts were used to ask participants about concerns that were highlighted by our previous quantitative work on this topic, such as concerns about being older or having to travel to participate. Interview transcripts were analysed using a framework analysis approach. Results: Our findings suggest that cancer patient decision-making about research participation during an infectious disease pandemic may be a function of a basic cost-benefit analysis, which considers the benefit of taking part, either personally to themselves or to wider society. The benefit may then be weighed by the patient against the risk of being infected, which may be influenced by trust in the relevant clinicians/researchers; familiarity with the study location; provision of detailed information on safety protocols for infectious disease; and, in particular, the availability of safe transport to and from the study location. Discussion: Some cancer patients say that they would be less likely to participate in a research study in the middle of an infectious disease pandemic due to an increased risk to themselves. Patients' perceived risk to themselves from participating may be ameliorated via the provision of certain practical solutions that can be considered at the study protocol design stage, such as safe travel, information, and the use of staff and study sites familiar to the patient.

ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study: protocol for a single-centre feasibility study inviting men for prostate cancer screening using MRI.

INTRODUCTION: The primary objective of the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is to explore the uptake of an invitation to prostate cancer screening using MRI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study is a prospective single-centre feasibility study. Eligible men aged 50-75 years with no prior prostate cancer diagnosis or treatment will be identified through general practitioner practices and randomly selected for invitation. Those invited will be offered an MRI scan and a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. The screening MRI scan consists of T2-weighted, diffusion-weighted and research-specific sequences, without the use of intravenous contrast agents. Men who screen positive on either MRI or PSA density will be recommended to have standard of care (National Health Service) tests for prostate cancer assessment, which includes multiparametric MRI. The study will assess the acceptability of an MRI-based prostate screening assessment and the prevalence of cancer detected in MRI-screened men. Summary statistics will be used to explore baseline characteristics in relation to acceptance rates and prevalence of cancer. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening is a single-site screening study to assess the feasibility of MRI as a screening tool for prostate cancer. Ethical approval was granted by London-Stanmore Research Ethics Committee Heath Research Authority (reference 19/LO/1129). Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals after completion of data analysis and used to inform the design of a multicentre screening study in the UK. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04063566).

Risk of COVID-19 death in cancer patients: an analysis from Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital in London.

BACKGROUND: Using an updated dataset with more patients and extended follow-up, we further established cancer patient characteristics associated with COVID-19 death. METHODS: Data on all cancer patients with a positive reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction swab for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) at Guy's Cancer Centre and King's College Hospital between 29 February and 31 July 2020 was used. Cox proportional hazards regression was performed to identify which factors were associated with COVID-19 mortality. RESULTS: Three hundred and six SARS-CoV-2-positive cancer patients were included. Seventy-one had mild/moderate and 29% had severe COVID-19. Seventy-two patients died of COVID-19 (24%), of whom 35 died <7 days. Male sex [hazard ratio (HR): 1.97 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.15-3.38)], Asian ethnicity [3.42 (1. 59-7.35)], haematological cancer [2.03 (1.16-3.56)] and a cancer diagnosis for >2-5 years [2.81 (1.41-5.59)] or ≥5 years were associated with an increased mortality. Age >60 years and raised C-reactive protein (CRP) were also associated with COVID-19 death. Haematological cancer, a longer-established cancer diagnosis, dyspnoea at diagnosis and raised CRP were indicative of early COVID-19-related death in cancer patients (<7 days from diagnosis). CONCLUSIONS: Findings further substantiate evidence for increased risk of COVID-19 mortality for male and Asian cancer patients, and those with haematological malignancies or a cancer diagnosis >2 years. These factors should be accounted for when making clinical decisions for cancer patients.

Designing a Pragmatic Intervention to Help Improve the Bladder Cancer Patient Experience.

Bladder cancer (BC) is the 10th most common malignancy worldwide and the patient experience is found to be worse than that for patients diagnosed with other cancer types. We aimed to develop a wellbeing intervention to help improve the bladder cancer patient experience by ameliorating their health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL). We followed the 3 phases of the modified Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for development of complex interventions. Following a systematic review of the literature on mental, sexual, and physical wellbeing, we conducted discussion groups with patients and healthcare professionals on these 3 themes. A consultation phase was then conducted with all relevant stakeholders to co-design a wellbeing intervention as part of a feasibility study. A pragmatic wellbeing feasibility trial was designed based on the hypothesis that a wellbeing program will increase patient awareness and attendance to services available to them and will better support their needs to improve HRQoL. The primary feasibility endpoints are patient attendance to the services offered and changes in HRQoL. The principle of patient centered care has strengthened the commitment to provide a holistic approach to support BC patients. In this study, we developed a wellbeing intervention in collaboration with patients and healthcare professionals to meet an unmet need in terms of the BC patient experience.

Survival Outcomes in Invasive Lobular Carcinoma Compared to Oestrogen Receptor-Positive Invasive Ductal Carcinoma.

Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) accounts for 10-15% of breast cancers and has distinct characteristics compared with the more common invasive ductal carcinoma (IDC). Studies have shown that ILC may be less sensitive to chemotherapy than IDC, with lower rates of complete pathological response after neo-adjuvant chemotherapy, but it is not clear how this affects long-term survival. Patients at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust between 1975 and 2016 diagnosed with ER+ IDC or ER+ ILC were eligible for inclusion. Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used for analysis. There was no difference in overall survival comparing ER+ ILC to ER+ IDC (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.04) with a median follow-up time of 8.3 years compared to 8.4 years in IDC. However, ER+HER2- ILC had worse survival compared to ER+HER2- IDC in those that received chemotherapy (OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.06, 2.01). Here, median follow-up time was 7.0 years in ILC compared to 8.1 years in IDC. These results indicate worse overall survival after chemotherapy (neo-adjuvant and adjuvant) in ILC compared to ER+HER2- IDC even when correcting for tumour grade, age, size, and nodal involvement, but validation is needed in a larger study population.

The importance of patient and public involvement in cancer research: time to create a new job profile.

Tweetable abstract Need to add #PPI coordinator to required job profiles in #research: improve research quality, enthuse research team and ensure #patients and their families are the center of our research activities.

COVID-19 Risk Factors for Cancer Patients: A First Report with Comparator Data from COVID-19 Negative Cancer Patients.

Very few studies investigating COVID-19 in cancer patients have included cancer patients as controls. We aimed to identify factors associated with the risk of testing positive for SARS CoV2 infection in a cohort of cancer patients. We analyzed data from all cancer patients swabbed for COVID-19 between 1st March and 31st July 2020 at Guy's Cancer Centre. We conducted logistic regression analyses to identify which factors were associated with a positive COVID-19 test. Results: Of the 2152 patients tested for COVID-19, 190 (9%) tested positive. Male sex, black ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were positively associated with risk of COVID-19 (OR = 1.85, 95%CI:1.37-2.51; OR = 1.93, 95%CI:1.31-2.84; OR = 2.29, 95%CI:1.45-3.62, respectively) as compared to females, white ethnicity, or solid cancer type, respectively. Male, Asian ethnicity, and hematological cancer type were associated with an increased risk of severe COVID-19 (OR = 3.12, 95%CI:1.58-6.14; OR = 2.97, 95%CI:1.00-8.93; OR = 2.43, 95%CI:1.00-5.90, respectively). This study is one of the first to compare the risk of COVID-19 incidence and severity in cancer patients when including cancer patients as controls. Results from this study have echoed those of previous reports, that patients who are male, of black or Asian ethnicity, or with a hematological malignancy are at an increased risk of COVID-19.

Update from the ReIMAGINE Prostate Cancer Screening Study NCT04063566: Inviting Men for Prostate Cancer Screening Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

ReIMAGINE Screening is a single-centre study assessing the feasibility of biparametric magnetic resonance imaging as a screening tool for prostate cancer. The study outcomes will take us a step towards more accurate and less harmful prostate cancer screening.

Diagnostic and prognostic factors in patients with prostate cancer: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As part of the PIONEER (Prostate Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment Enhancement Through the Power of Big Data in Europe) Consortium, we will explore which diagnostic and prognostic factors (DPFs) are currently being researched to previously defined clinical and patient-reported outcomes for prostate cancer (PCa). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This research project will follow the following four steps: (1) a broad systematic literature review of DPFs for all stages of PCa, covering evidence from 2014 onwards; (2) discussion of systematic review findings by a multidisciplinary expert panel; (3) risk of bias assessment and applicability with Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool criteria, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool (QUIPS) and (4) additional quantitative assessments if required. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We aim to develop an online tool to present the DPFs identified in this research and make them available across all stakeholders. There are no ethical implications.

Gender Differences in Concerns About Participating in Cancer Research During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is having major effects on cancer research, including major reductions in participant accrual to cancer clinical trials. Existing research has indicated that these steep drops in accrual rates to cancer clinical trials may be disproportionately affecting women. We sought to determine if there were gender differences in a dataset collected to examine participants' concerns about taking part in cancer research during the pandemic. METHODS: Between 5-19 June 2020, we distributed a fully anonymized survey via social media. We contacted 85 UK cancer patient organizations/charities and asked them to share our questionnaire on their platforms, of which 26 obliged. Patients aged 18 with a cancer diagnosis were eligible to participate and asked about their clinical and demographic characteristics, concerns about research participation given the COVID-19 pandemic, anxiety levels measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, amongst other questions. Anxiety levels and concerns about participating were compared between men and women using univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: 93 individuals, comprising n = 37 women and n = 56 men of various cancer types, provided survey responses. Independent t-tests showed that women reported higher anxiety scores, and concerns about participating in cancer research during COVID-19, than men. Linear regression analyses showed that anxiety scores predicted concerns about research participation in women but not men (pinteraction = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer patients have concerns about participating in research during the COVID-19 pandemic that range from mild to serious. Furthermore, the relationship between general anxiety and concerns about research participation may be both more relevant and more pronounced in women than in men. Future work should examine the reasons why women are less likely to enrol in cancer trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Factors Affecting COVID-19 Outcomes in Cancer Patients: A First Report From Guy's Cancer Center in London.

Background: There is insufficient evidence to support clinical decision-making for cancer patients diagnosed with COVID-19 due to the lack of large studies. Methods: We used data from a single large UK Cancer Center to assess the demographic/clinical characteristics of 156 cancer patients with a confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis between 29 February and 12 May 2020. Logistic/Cox proportional hazards models were used to identify which demographic and/or clinical characteristics were associated with COVID-19 severity/death. Results: 128 (82%) presented with mild/moderate COVID-19 and 28 (18%) with a severe case of the disease. An initial cancer diagnosis >24 months before COVID-19 [OR: 1.74 (95% CI: 0.71-4.26)], presenting with fever [6.21 (1.76-21.99)], dyspnea [2.60 (1.00-6.76)], gastro-intestinal symptoms [7.38 (2.71-20.16)], or higher levels of C-reactive protein [9.43 (0.73-121.12)] were linked with greater COVID-19 severity. During a median follow-up of 37 days, 34 patients had died of COVID-19 (22%). Being of Asian ethnicity [3.73 (1.28-10.91)], receiving palliative treatment [5.74 (1.15-28.79)], having an initial cancer diagnosis >24 months before [2.14 (1.04-4.44)], dyspnea [4.94 (1.99-12.25)], and increased CRP levels [10.35 (1.05-52.21)] were positively associated with COVID-19 death. An inverse association was observed with increased levels of albumin [0.04 (0.01-0.04)]. Conclusions: A longer-established diagnosis of cancer was associated with increased severity of infection as well as COVID-19 death, possibly reflecting the effects a more advanced malignant disease has on this infection. Asian ethnicity and palliative treatment were also associated with COVID-19 death in cancer patients.