Evaluating the impact of the metastatic spinal cord compression coordinator in a regional cancer network: a prospective, non-randomized pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Extradural metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) is a debilitating and potentially irreversible complication of cancer. Delay in treatment could lead to irreversible neurological damage, adverse quality of life and a burden on health care resources. Lack of effective communication between teams has been identified as one of the reasons for delay in treatment. The MSCC coordinator (often a nurse, radiotherapy radiographer or a doctor) is responsible for coordinating the diagnosis and management of patients with MSCC. The role has been shown to streamline service, ensure timely decision-making and improved survival outcomes. However, available data are anecdotal or from limited series presented as abstracts in conferences. In this study, we assessed the impact (time to treatment) of the newly introduced role on the treatment pathway compared to similar period in the preceding year. METHODS: This was a multi-centre, prospective, pilot study carried out in Kent, UK between 1st April to 30th June 2021. Patients were considered eligible if they had magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-confirmed cauda equina or cord compression. The data prospectively collected include: (I) time from diagnostic imaging to radiotherapy treatment; (II) number of referrals to hospital palliative care (HPC), occupational/physiotherapy (OPH) and community hospice referrals (CHP). A comparative retrospective data for (I) was collected for the same time period in the preceding year. The study outcome assessed was reduction in time from radiological diagnosis of MSCC to receiving radiotherapy. RESULTS: Fifty-eight patients in 2020 and 24 patients in 2021 were included in the dataset. The MSCC coordinator role (introduced in 2021) led to reduction in the time from imaging to treatment (P=0.045). Compared to 2020, there was a shorter mean/median time to treatment, seeing more patients being treated within 24 hours. All hospitals except East Kent Hospitals saw more patients being treated within 24 hours. 7 referrals each made to HPC, OPH and CHP respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of MSCC coordinator role led to improved time from imaging to radiotherapy treatment. The new service led to engagement with rehabilitative and palliative services. Future work should be done to assess the long-term impact of this role on utilization of support services and patient recovery.

A Randomized, Double-Blind, Biomarker-Selected, Phase II Clinical Trial of Maintenance Poly ADP-Ribose Polymerase Inhibition With Rucaparib Following Chemotherapy for Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

PURPOSE: A DNA repair deficiency (DRD) phenotype exists within a subset of metastatic urothelial carcinomas (mUC) predicting benefit from platinum-based chemotherapy. We tested switch maintenance therapy with the poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor rucaparib, following chemotherapy, for DRD biomarker-positive mUC. METHODS: DRD biomarker-positive mUC patients, within 10 weeks of chemotherapy, and without cancer progression, were randomly assigned (1:1) to maintenance rucaparib 600 mg twice a day orally, or placebo, until disease progression. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). Statistical analysis targeted a hazard ratio of 0.5 with a 20% one-sided α for this signal-seeking trial. PFS (RECIST 1.1) was compared between trial arms, by intention to treat, within a Cox model. RESULTS: Out of 248 patients, 74 (29.8%) were DRD biomarker-positive and 40 were randomly assigned. A total of 12 (60%) and 20 (100%) PFS events occurred in the rucaparib and placebo arms, respectively (median follow-up was 94.6 weeks in those still alive). Median PFS was 35.3 weeks (80% CI, 11.7 to 35.6) with rucaparib and 15.1 weeks (80% CI, 11.9 to 22.6) with placebo (hazard ratio, 0.53; 80% CI, 0.30 to 0.92; one-sided P = .07). In the safety population (n = 39) treatment-related adverse events were mostly low grade. Patients received a median duration of 10 rucaparib or six placebo cycles on treatment. Treatment-related adverse events (all grades) of fatigue (63.2% v 30.0%), nausea (36.8% v 5.0%), rash (21.1% v 0%), and raised alanine aminotransferase (57.9% v 10%) were more common with rucaparib. CONCLUSION: Maintenance rucaparib, following platinum-based chemotherapy, extended PFS in DRD biomarker-selected patients with mUC and was tolerable. Further investigation of poly ADP-ribose polymerase inhibition in selected patients with mUC is warranted.

Observation versus screening spinal MRI and pre-emptive treatment for spinal cord compression in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastases in the UK (PROMPTS): an open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of malignant spinal cord compression (SCC) is crucial because pretreatment neurological status is the major determinant of outcome. In metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, SCC is a clinically significant cause of disease-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated whether screening for SCC with spinal MRI, and pre-emptive treatment if radiological SCC (rSCC) was detected, reduced the incidence of clinical SCC (cSCC) in asymptomatic patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and spinal metastasis. METHODS: We did a parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled, phase 3, superiority trial. Patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer were recruited from 45 National Health Service hospitals in the UK. Eligible patients were aged at least 18 years, with an Eastern Co-operative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, asymptomatic spinal metastasis, no previous SCC, and no spinal MRI in the past 12 months. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1), using a minimisation algorithm with a random element (balancing factors were treatment centre, alkaline phosphatase [normal vs raised, with the upper limit of normal being defined at each participating laboratory], number of previous systemic treatments [first-line vs second-line or later], previous spinal treatment, and imaging of thorax and abdomen), to no MRI (control group) or screening spinal MRI (intervention group). Serious adverse events were monitored in the 24 h after screening MRI in the intervention group. Participants with screen-detected rSCC were offered pre-emptive treatment (radiotherapy or surgical decompression was recommended per treating physician's recommendation) and 6-monthly spinal MRI. All patients were followed up every 3 months, and then at month 30 and 36. The primary endpoint was time to and incidence of confirmed cSCC in the intention-to-treat population (defined as all patients randomly assigned), with the primary timepoint of interest being 1 year after randomisation. The study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN74112318, and is now complete. FINDINGS: Between Feb 26, 2013, and April 25, 2017, 420 patients were randomly assigned to the control (n=210) or screening MRI (n=210) groups. Median age was 74 years (IQR 68 to 79), 222 (53%) of 420 patients had normal alkaline phosphatase, and median prostate-specific antigen concentration was 48 ng/mL (IQR 17 to 162). Screening MRI detected rSCC in 61 (31%) of 200 patients with assessable scans in the intervention group. As of data cutoff (April 23, 2020), at a median follow-up of 22 months (IQR 13 to 31), time to cSCC was not significantly improved with screening (hazard ratio 0·64 [95% CI 0·37 to 1·11]; Gray's test p=0·12). 1-year cSCC rates were 6·7% (95% CI 3·8-10·6; 14 of 210 patients) for the control group and 4·3% (2·1-7·7; nine of 210 patients) for the intervention group (difference -2·4% [95% CI -4·2 to 0·1]). Median time to cSCC was not reached in either group. No serious adverse events were reported within 24 h of screening. INTERPRETATION: Despite the substantial incidence of rSCC detected in the intervention group, the rate of cSCC in both groups was low at a median of 22 months of follow-up. Routine use of screening MRI and pre-emptive treatment to prevent cSCC is not warranted in patients with asymptomatic castration-resistant prostate cancer with spinal metastasis. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Management of Metastatic Spinal Cord Compression in Secondary Care: A Practice Reflection from Medway Maritime Hospital, Kent, UK.

INTRODUCTION: Malignant spinal cord compression (MSCC) is one of the most devastating complications of cancer. This event requires rapid decision-making on the part of several specialists, given the risk of permanent spinal cord injury or death. The goals of treatment in spinal metastases are pain control and improvement of neurological function. There can be challenges in delivering prompt diagnosis and treatment in a secondary care setting. We have reflected on the experience of managing MSCC in a district general setting. AIM: Our retrospective audit identified 53 patients with suspected MSCC who entered the relevant pathway from April 2017 to March 2018 at Medway, United Kingdom (UK). Our audit standards were set out by Medway Maritime Hospital and Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust MSCC working group members, using a combination of published evidence and best practice. RESULTS: The patients with suspected MSCC were 53 and 29 of them (54.7%) had confirmed MSCC. The most common malignancies within the confirmed MSCC were lung (11 patients, 37.9%), breast (5 patients 17.2%), and renal (3 patients, 10.3%), followed by prostate, myeloma and carcinoma of unknown primary (2 patients (6.9%) each), as well as pancreatic, colorectal, lymphoma and, bladder (1 patient (3.4%) each). A magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan was performed in 48 patients (90.5%); the majority (31 patients, 64.6%) underwent the MRI within the first 24 h, whereas 3 patients had the investigation between 24 and 72 h from the admission. Among the 29 patients with confirmed MSCC, 6 (20.6%) were treated with surgical decompression, while 20 (69%) received radiotherapy (RT) and 3 (10.3%) best supportive care, respectively. Median time to surgery was 5 days (ranged between 2 and 8 days), whereas for RT 44.4 h (ranged between 24 and 72 h). Finally, all 3 patients that decided on symptom control were referred to a palliative care team within the first 24 h following the MRI scan. CONCLUSIONS: MSCC is frequently presented outside tertiary care. This may cause subsequent delays in investigation, diagnosis, and treatment, which can be improved by following a fast track referral pathway.

Timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT): a randomised, controlled phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing of radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer is uncertain. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of adjuvant radiotherapy versus an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) biochemical progression. METHODS: We did a randomised controlled trial enrolling patients with at least one risk factor (pathological T-stage 3 or 4, Gleason score of 7-10, positive margins, or preoperative PSA ≥10 ng/mL) for biochemical progression after radical prostatectomy (RADICALS-RT). The study took place in trial-accredited centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to adjuvant radiotherapy or an observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression (PSA ≥0·1 ng/mL or three consecutive rises). Masking was not deemed feasible. Stratification factors were Gleason score, margin status, planned radiotherapy schedule (52·5 Gy in 20 fractions or 66 Gy in 33 fractions), and centre. The primary outcome measure was freedom from distant metastases, designed with 80% power to detect an improvement from 90% with salvage radiotherapy (control) to 95% at 10 years with adjuvant radiotherapy. We report on biochemical progression-free survival, freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. Standard survival analysis methods were used. A hazard ratio (HR) of less than 1 favoured adjuvant radiotherapy. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047. FINDINGS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and Dec 30, 2016, 1396 patients were randomly assigned, 699 (50%) to salvage radiotherapy and 697 (50%) to adjuvant radiotherapy. Allocated groups were balanced with a median age of 65 years (IQR 60-68). Median follow-up was 4·9 years (IQR 3·0-6·1). 649 (93%) of 697 participants in the adjuvant radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 6 months; 228 (33%) of 699 in the salvage radiotherapy group reported radiotherapy within 8 years after randomisation. With 169 events, 5-year biochemical progression-free survival was 85% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group and 88% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 1·10, 95% CI 0·81-1·49; p=0·56). Freedom from non-protocol hormone therapy at 5 years was 93% for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 92% for those in the salvage radiotherapy group (HR 0·88, 95% CI 0·58-1·33; p=0·53). Self-reported urinary incontinence was worse at 1 year for those in the adjuvant radiotherapy group (mean score 4·8 vs 4·0; p=0·0023). Grade 3-4 urethral stricture within 2 years was reported in 6% of individuals in the adjuvant radiotherapy group versus 4% in the salvage radiotherapy group (p=0·020). INTERPRETATION: These initial results do not support routine administration of adjuvant radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adjuvant radiotherapy increases the risk of urinary morbidity. An observation policy with salvage radiotherapy for PSA biochemical progression should be the current standard after radical prostatectomy. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, MRC Clinical Trials Unit, and Canadian Cancer Society.

Active surveillance in prostate cancer: patient selection and triggers for intervention.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The long-term safety and effectiveness of active surveillance depends on our ability to select appropriate patients and trigger delayed treatment in those who need it, whereas avoiding intervention in those who do not. In this review, we will consider how recent advances have influenced patient selection for active surveillance and review the range of different intervention triggers that have been proposed. RECENT FINDINGS: Several large surveillance cohort studies have been reported recently showing excellent medium-term outcomes in well selected patients, with approximately a third of patients going on to have deferred treatment. Debate continues on the most appropriate eligibility criteria for active surveillance and what triggers for intervention should be used. There is growing interest in the role of transperineal template biopsies and multiparametric MRI, both for patient selection and in identifying triggers for intervention. SUMMARY: Active surveillance is a well tolerated treatment option in well selected groups of patients. There is no 'one size fits all' set of criteria for patient selection or triggers for intervention but decisions can be guided by information from histology, prostate-specific antigen kinetics and imaging.

Minimizing toxicity in early-stage testicular cancer treatment.

Testicular cancer is the paradigm of a curable malignancy, with 10-year survival rates exceeding 95%. Cisplatin-based regimes offer a survival gain of several decades of life; however, measures of outcomes in testicular cancer are evolving. Survivorship issues are becoming increasingly important in this young adult population. Long-term risks of second malignancy and cardiovascular disease secondary to chemotherapy and radiotherapy have been extensively documented, leading to an increased uptake of surveillance. However, the optimal surveillance schedule is not universally agreed upon. Research into modalities to detect relapse and frequency is ongoing. Reducing the treatment burden with fewer cycles of chemotherapy (one cycle of bleomycin, cisplatin and etoposide instead of two for stage I high-risk nonseminomatous tumors) or less toxic alternatives (carboplatin instead of radiotherapy for stage I seminomas) is currently being explored. This article details the toxicities associated with the diagnosis and treatments of early-stage testicular cancer and current strategies used to minimize toxicity while retaining the excellent cure rates.