Humidification mitigates acute mucosal toxicity during radiotherapy when factoring volumetric parameters. Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) RadioHUM 07.03 substudy.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE(S): To model in a subset of patients from TROG 07.03 managed at a single site the association between domiciliary based humidification use and mucositis symptom burden during radiotherapy (RT) for head and neck cancer (HNC) when factoring in volumetric radiotherapy parameters derived from tumour and normal tissue regions of interest. MATERIALS/METHODS: From June 2008 through June 2011, 210 patients with HNC receiving RT were randomised to either a control arm or humidification using the Fisher & Paykel Healthcare MR880 humidifier. This subset analysis involves patients recruited from Auckland City Hospital treated with a prescribed dose of ≥70 Gy. Regression models included control variables for Planning Target Volume 70 GY (PTV70Gy); Equivalent Uniform Dose (EUD) MOIST and TSV (surrogates of total mucosal and total swallowing volumes respectively). RESULTS: The analysis included 39 patients (humidification 20, control 19). There was a significant odds reduction in CTCAE v3.0 functional mucositis score of 0.29 associated with the use of humidification (p<.001). Within the parameters of the model therefore, the risk of a humidification patient being scored as experiencing a one-step increase in functional mucositis was 3.45 times lower (1/0.29) than for control patients. A control patient was 4.17 times more likely to receive an unfavourable nutritional mode score (p<.001). The risk of being admitted to hospital decreased by a factor of 11.11 for humidification patients (p=.013). CONCLUSION: The results support the hypothesis that humidification can help mitigate mucositis symptom burden. Radiotherapy dosimetric parameters assist in the evaluation of toxicity interventions.

Do screening trial recruitment logs accurately reflect the eligibility criteria of a given clinical trial? Early lessons from the RAVES 0803 trial.

AIMS: Maintaining clinical trial screening logs and reporting data from such logs are given importance due to the relevance of a trial's patient population to the generalisability of its findings. However, screening logs may not always reflect a clinical trial's true target population. The aim of the present study was to define and compare 'apparent recruitment' to a trial as captured in a clinical trial screening log with 'true recruitment', which considers all potentially eligible patients. The Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 0803 RAVES clinical trial was used to examine the above. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, surgical database was interrogated for the 12 month period to identify patients potentially eligible for the TROG 0803 RAVES trial. Information on whether patients were referred to a RAVES trial recruitment site and reasons for non-referral were obtained. RESULTS: Of 92 men undergoing radical prostatectomy, 28 met the RAVES clinical trial eligibility criteria. Fifteen of the 28 eligible men were assessed at a RAVES trial site, with five being ultimately recruited to RAVES (33% 'apparent recruitment fraction' as captured by the site's trial screening log). The 'true recruitment fraction' was 5/28 (18%). CONCLUSION: Screening logs at a recruiting trial site may underestimate the trial's target population and overestimate recruitment. Only a subpopulation of all eligible patients may be captured in trial screening logs and subsequently reported on. This may affect the generalisability of the trial's reported findings.