Search

PURPOSE: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) health-related quality of life questionnaire for anal cancer (QLQ-ANL27) supplements the EORTC cancer generic measure (QLQ-C30) to measure concerns specific to people with anal cancer treated with chemoradiotherapy. This study tested the psychometric properties and acceptability of the QLQ-ANL27.METHODS AND MATERIALS: People with anal cancer were recruited from 15 countries to complete the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-ANL27 and provide feedback on the QLQ-ANL27. Item responses, scale structure (multitrait scaling, factor analysis), reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) and sensitivity (known group comparisons and responsiveness to change) of the QLQ-ANL27 were evaluated.RESULTS: Data from 382 people were included in the analyses. The EORTC QLQ-ANL27 was acceptable, comprehensive, and easy to complete, taking an average 8 minutes to complete. Psychometric analyses supported the EORTC QLQ-ANL27 items and reliability (Cronbach's α ranging from 0.71-0.93 and test-retest coefficients above 0.7) and validity of the scales (particularly nonstoma bowel symptoms and pain/discomfort). Most scales distinguished people according to treatment phase and performance status. Bowel (nonstoma), pain/discomfort, and vaginal symptoms were sensitive to deteriorations over time. The stoma-related scales remained untested because of low numbers of people with a stoma. Revisions to the scoring and question ordering of the sexual items were proposed.CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-ANL27 has good psychometric properties and is available in 16 languages for people treated with chemoradiotherapy for anal cancer. It is used in clinical trials and has a potential role in clinical practice.

PURPOSE The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Item Library is an interactive online platform currently composed of 950 unique items (questions) derived from 67 patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires. PROs complement clinician adverse event (AE) reporting classifications like the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). This work aims to create a standardized framework using the CTCAE to systematically classify symptomatic AEs from the EORTC Item Library through linking individual items to corresponding AEs. METHODS The EORTC Item Library items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) and linked to an AE if they were described within the AE's title, description, or grading. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing symptoms. Other nonsymptom EORTC items, not described within the CTCAE were assigned a non-CTCAE descriptive classification. Further descriptive codes (eg, multiple issues) were allocated to enable descriptive analysis. Two raters independently coded 26.2% (n = 249) of the items. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, followed by discussion with two additional raters to reach consensus. RESULTS Overall, 625 (65.8%) EORTC items were linked to 208 different AEs. Three hundred sixty-nine items provide information about non-CTCAE cancer–related issues and were categorized into seven descriptive classifications, including body image; emotional impact of a symptom, diagnosis, or treatment; global health and quality of life; and impact on life and daily activities. Inter-rater agreement for independent coding was 79.1%. Bowel urgency and tenesmus were identified as missing symptoms in CTCAEv5.0. CONCLUSION The EORTC Item Library provides considerable coverage of CTCAE toxicities, along with other complementary issues important to patients with cancer. Using the CTCAE clinical framework to classify symptomatic PRO items may facilitate PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit–risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron-emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for response assessment post curative-intent chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC). Methods Consecutive ASCC patients treated with curative-intent CRT at a single centre between January 2018 and April 2020 were retrospectively identified. Clinical meta-data including progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) outcomes were collated. Three radiologists evaluated PET-CT and MRI using qualitative response assessment criteria and agreed in consensus. Two-proportion z test was used to compare diagnostic performance metrics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), accuracy). Kaplan-Meier analysis (Mantel-Cox log-rank) was performed. Results MRI (accuracy 76%, PPV 44.8%, NPV 95.7%) and PET-CT (accuracy 69.3%, PPV 36.7%, NPV 91.1%) performance metrics were similar; when combined, there were statistically significant improvements (accuracy 94.7%, PPV 78.9%, NPV 100%). Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated significant differences in PFS between responders and non-responders at PET-CT (p = 0.007), MRI (p = 0.005), and consensus evaluation (p < 0.001). Cox regression analysis of PFS demonstrated a lower hazard ratio (HR) and narrower 95% confidence intervals for consensus findings (HR = 0.093, p < 0.001). Seventy-five patients, of which 52 (69.3%) were females, with median follow-up of 17.8 months (range 5–32.6) were included. Fifteen of the 75 (20%) had persistent anorectal and/or nodal disease after CRT. Three patients died, median time to death 6.2 months (range 5–18.3). Conclusion Combined PET-CT and MRI response assessment post-CRT better predicts subsequent outcome than either modality alone. This could have valuable clinical benefits by guiding personalised risk-adapted patient follow-up. Key Points • MRI and PET-CT performance metrics for assessing response following chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) were similar. • Combined MRI and PET-CT treatment response assessment 3 months after CRT in patients with ASCC was demonstrated to be superior to either modality alone. • A combined MRI and PET-CT assessment 3 months after CRT in patients with ASCC has the potential to improve accuracy and guide optimal patient management with a greater ability to predict outcome than either modality alone

Introduction: Limited evidence exists showing the benefit of magnetic resonance (MR)-only radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers. This study aims to assess the impact of MR-only planning on target volumes (TVs) and treatment plan doses to organs at risks (OARs) for anal and rectal cancers versus a computed tomography (CT)-only pathway. Materials and methods: Forty-six patients (29 rectum and 17 anus) undergoing preoperative or radical external beam radiotherapy received CT and T2 MR simulation. TV and OARs were delineated on CT and MR, and volumetric arc therapy treatment plans were optimized independently (53.2 Gy/28 fractions for anus, 45 Gy/25 fractions for rectum). Further treatment plans assessed gross tumor volume (GTV) dose escalation. Differences in TV volumes and OAR doses, in terms of Vx Gy (organ volume (%) receiving x dose (Gy)), were assessed. Results: MR GTV and primary planning TV (PTV) volumes systematically reduced by 13 cc and 98 cc (anus) and 44 cc and 109 cc (rectum) respectively compared to CT volumes. Statistically significant OAR dose reductions versus CT were found for bladder and uterus (rectum) and bladder, penile bulb, and genitalia (anus). With GTV boosting, statistically significant dose reductions were found for sigmoid, small bowel, vagina, and penile bulb (rectum) and vagina (anus). Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence that the introduction of MR (whether through MR-only or CT-MR pathways) to radiotherapy treatment planning for anal and rectal cancers has the potential to improve treatments. MR-related OAR dose reductions may translate into less treatment-related toxicity for patients or greater ability to dose escalate.

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians’ reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

Aim:The patient experience of radiotherapy magnetic resonance (MR) simulation is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the patient experience of MR simulation in comparison to computed tomography (CT) simulation, identifying the quality of patient experience and pathway changes which could improve patient experience outcomes.Materials and Methods:MR simulation was acquired for 46 anal and rectal cancer patients. Patient experience questionnaires were provided directly after MR simulation. Questionnaire responses were assessed after 33 patients (cohort one). Changes to the scanning pathway were identified and implemented. The impact of changes was assessed by cohort two (13 patients).Results:Response rates were 85% (cohort one) and 54% (cohort two). 75% of cohort one respondents found the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) experience to be better or similar to their CT experience. Implemented changes included routine use of blankets, earplugs and headphones, music and feet-first positioning and further MRI protocol optimisation. All cohort two respondents found the MRI experience to be better or similar to the CT experience.Findings:MR simulation can be a comfortable and positive experience that is comparable to that of standard radiotherapy CT simulation. Special attention is required due to the fundamental differences between CT and MRI scanning.

Aims Preoperative (chemo)radiotherapy followed by total mesorectal excision is the current standard of care for patients with locally advanced rectal cancer. The use of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) for rectal cancer is increasing in the UK. However, the extent of IMRT implementation and current practice was not previously known. A national survey was commissioned to investigate the landscape of IMRT use for rectal cancer and to inform the development of national rectal cancer IMRT guidance. Materials and methods A web-based survey was developed by the National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance working group in collaboration with the Royal College of Radiologists and disseminated to all UK radiotherapy centres. The survey enquired about the implementation of IMRT with a focus on the following aspects of the workflow: dose fractionation schedules and use of a boost; pre-treatment preparation and simulation; target volume/organ at risk definition; treatment planning and treatment verification. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out. Results In total, 44 of 63 centres (70%) responded to the survey; 30/44 (68%) and 36/44 (82%) centres currently use IMRT to treat all patients and selected patients with rectal cancer, respectively. There was general agreement concerning several aspects of the IMRT workflow, including patient positioning, use of intravenous contrast and bladder protocols. Greater variation in practice was identified regarding rectal protocols; use of a boost to primary/nodal disease; target volume delineation; organ at risk delineation and dose constraints and treatment verification. Delineation of individual small bowel loops and daily volumetric treatment verification were considered potentially feasible by most centres. Conclusion This survey identified that IMRT is already used to treat rectal cancer in many UK radiotherapy centres, but there is heterogeneity between centres in its implementation and practice. These results have been a valuable aid in framing the recommendations within the new National Rectal Cancer IMRT Guidance., Highlights • First national UK survey of rectal cancer IMRT use and practice. • Considerable variation identified in IMRT implementation and practice. • Results of survey informed recommendations within new national consensus guideline.

Background\ud Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard treatment for anal cancer. Following national UK implementation of intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), this prospective, national cohort evaluates the one-year oncological outcomes and patient-reported toxicity outcomes (PRO) after treatment.\ud Materials and methods\ud A national cohort of UK cancer centers implementing IMRT was carried out between February to July 2015. Cancer centers provided data on oncological outcomes, including survival, and disease and colostomy status at one-year. EORTC-QLQ core (C30) and colorectal (CR29) questionnaires were completed at baseline and one-year followup. The PRO scores at baseline and one year were compared.\ud Results\ud 40 UK Cancer Centers returned data with a total of 187 patients included in the analysis. 92% received mitomycin with 5-fluorouracil or capecitabine. One-year overall survival was 94%; 84% were disease-free and 86% colostomy-free at one-year followup. At one year, PRO results found significant improvements in buttock pain, blood and mucus in stools, pain, constipation, appetite loss, and health anxiety compared to baseline. No significant deteriorations were reported in diarrhea, bowel frequency, and flatulence. Urinary symptom scores were low at one year. Moderate impotence symptoms at baseline remained at one year, and a moderate deterioration in dyspareunia reported.\ud Conclusions\ud With national anal cancer IMRT implementation, at this early pre-defined time point, one-year oncological outcomes were reassuring and resulted in good disease-related symptom control. one-year symptomatic complications following CRT for anal cancer using IMRT techniques appear to be relatively mild. These PRO results provide a basis to benchmark future studies.

Radiation therapy (RT) and chemoRT for pelvic cancers increase survival but are associated with serious treatment-related symptoms. Electronic-patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is a secure online system for patients to self-report symptoms, generating immediate advice for hospital contact or self-management. This pilot study aimed to establish feasibility and acceptability of the system.In a prospective 2-center randomized parallel-group pilot study, patients undergoing radical pelvic RT for prostate cancer (prostateRT) or chemoRT for lower gastrointestinal and gynecological cancers were randomized to usual care (UC) or eRAPID (weekly online symptom reporting for 12, 18, and 24 weeks). Primary outcomes were recruitment/attrition, study completion, and patient adherence. Secondary outcomes were effect on hospital services and performance of patient outcome measures. Missing data, floor/ceiling effects, and mean change scores were examined for Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT-G), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ C-30), self-efficacy, and EuroQol (EQ5D).From 228 patients approached, 167 (73.2%) were consented and randomized (83, eRAPID; 84, UC; 87, prostateRT; 80, chemoRT); 150 of 167 completed 24 study weeks. Only 16 patients (9.6%) withdrew (10, eRAPID; 6, UC). In the eRAPID arm, completion rates were higher in patients treated with prostateRT compared with chemoRT (week 1, 93% vs 69%; week 2, 93% vs 68%; week 12, 69% vs 55%). Overall, over 50% of online reports triggered self-management advice for milder adverse events. Unscheduled hospital contact was low, with no difference between eRAPID and UC. Return rates for outcome measures were excellent in prostateRT (97%-91%; 6-24 weeks) but lower in chemoRT (95%-55%; 6-24 weeks). Missing data were low (1%-4.1%), ceiling effects were evident in EQ5D-5L, self-efficacy-scale, and FACT-Physical Wellbeing. At 6 weeks, the chemoRT-eRAPID group showed less deterioration in FACT-G, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EQ5D-Visual Analogue Scale than UC, after baseline adjustment.eRAPID was successfully added to UC at 2 cancer centers in different patient populations. Acceptability and feasibility were confirmed with excellent adherence by prostate patients, but lower by those undergoing chemoRT for gynecological cancers.

Patient reported outcomes are increasingly included in research studies to provide the patient perspective. Grant applicants and grant reviewers require guidance on the key information that should be included in funding applications to demonstrate rigorous methods for patient reported outcomes. This paper provides prioritised practical recommendations from an international consortium of experts on patient reported outcomes to inform grant applicants in preparing their research strategies and grant reviewers in evaluating applications.

Multimodal treatment strategies for patients with rectal cancer are increasingly including the possibility of organ preservation, through nonoperative management or local excision. Organ preservation strategies can enable patients with a complete response or near-complete clinical responses after radiotherapy with or without concomitant chemotherapy to safely avoid the morbidities associated with radical surgery, and thus to maintain anorectal function and quality of life. However, standardization of the key outcome measures of organ preservation strategies is currently lacking; this includes a lack of consensus of the optimal definitions and selection of primary end points according to the trial phase and design; the optimal time points for response assessment; response-based decision-making; follow-up schedules; use of specific anorectal function tests; and quality of life and patient-reported outcomes. Thus, a consensus statement on outcome measures is necessary to ensure consistency and facilitate more accurate comparisons of data from ongoing and future trials. Here, we have convened an international group of experts with extensive experience in the management of patients with rectal cancer, including organ preservation approaches, and used a Delphi process to establish the first international consensus recommendations for key outcome measures of organ preservation, in an attempt to standardize the reporting of data from both trials and routine practice in this emerging area. Patients with early-stage rectal cancer might potentially benefit from treatment with an organ-sparing approach, which preserves quality of life owing to avoidance of the need for permanent colostomy. Trials conducted to investigate this have so far been hampered by considerable inter-trial heterogeneity in several key features. In this Consensus Statement, the authors provide guidance on the optimal end points, response assessment time points, follow-up procedures and quality of life measures in an attempt to improve the comparability of clinical research in this area. Yorkshire Cancer Research Academic Fellowship fund [L389AA]; Yorkshire Cancer Research; Cancer Research UKCancer Research UK [CRUK/28301]

Purpose Incidence of anal squamous cell carcinoma (ASCC) is increasing, with curative chemoradiotherapy (CRT) as the primary treatment of non-metastatic disease. A significant proportion of patients have locoregional treatment failure (LRF), but distant relapse is uncommon. Accurate prognostication of progression-free survival (PFS) would help personalisation of CRT regimens. The study aim was to evaluate novel imaging pre-treatment features, to prognosticate for PFS in ASCC. Methods Consecutive patients with ASCC treated with curative intent at a large tertiary referral centre who underwent pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT were included. Radiomic feature extraction was performed using LIFEx software on baseline FDG-PET/CT. Outcome data (PFS) was collated from electronic patient records. Elastic net regularisation and feature selection were used for logistic regression model generation on a randomly selected training cohort and applied to a validation cohort using TRIPOD guidelines. ROC-AUC analysis was used to compare performance of a regression model encompassing standard clinical prognostic factors (age, sex, tumour and nodal stage—model A), a radiomic feature model (model B) and a combined radiomic/clinical model (model C). Results A total of 189 patients were included in the study, with 145 in the training cohort and 44 in the validation cohort. Median follow-up was 35.1 and 37. 9 months, respectively for each cohort, with 70.3% and 68.2% reaching this time-point with PFS. GLCM entropy (a measure of randomness of distribution of co-occurring pixel grey-levels), NGLDM busyness (a measure of spatial frequency of changes in intensity between nearby voxels of different grey-level), minimum CT value (lowest HU within the lesion) and SMTV (a standardized version of MTV) were selected for inclusion in the prognostic model, alongside tumour and nodal stage. AUCs for performance of model A (clinical), B (radiomic) and C (radiomic/clinical) were 0.6355, 0.7403, 0.7412 in the training cohort and 0.6024, 0.6595, 0.7381 in the validation cohort. Conclusion Radiomic features extracted from pre-treatment FDG-PET/CT in patients with ASCC may provide better PFS prognosis than conventional staging parameters. With external validation, this might be useful to help personalise CRT regimens in the future. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00259-019-04495-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose There is a growing population of cancer survivors at risk of treatment-related morbidity. This study investigated how potentially curative rectal cancer treatment influences subsequent function and health-related quality of life using data from a large-scale survey of patient-reported outcomes. Methods and Materials All individuals 12 to 36 months after receiving a diagnosis of colorectal cancer in England were sent a survey in January 2013. The survey responses were linked with cancer registration, hospital admissions, and radiation therapy data through the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. Outcome measures were cancer specific (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Social Difficulties Inventory items related to fecal incontinence, urinary incontinence, and sexual difficulties) and generic (EuroQol EQ-5D). Results Surveys were returned by 6713 (64.2%) of 10,452 patients with rectal cancer. Of these, 3998 patients were in remission after a major resection and formed the final analysis sample. Compared with those who had surgery alone, patients who received preoperative radiation therapy had higher odds of reporting poor bowel control (43.6% vs 33.0%; odds ratio [OR] = 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.26-1.91), severe urinary leakage (7.2% vs 3.5%; OR = 1.69; 95% CI, 1.18-2.43), and severe sexual difficulties (34.4% vs 18.3%; OR = 1.73; 95% CI, 1.43-2.11). Patients who received long-course chemoradiotherapy reported significantly better bowel control than those who had short-course radiation therapy, with no difference for other outcomes. Respondents with a stoma present reported significantly higher levels of severe sexual difficulties and worse health-related quality of life than those who had never had a stoma or had undergone stoma reversal. Conclusions This study demonstrated the feasibility of a large-scale assessment of patient-reported outcomes and provided “real-world” data regarding the effect of rectal cancer treatment. The results show that patients who receive preoperative radiation therapy reported poorer outcomes, particularly for bowel and sexual function, and highlighted the negative impact of a stoma. We hope that our experience will encourage researchers to perform similar studies in other healthcare systems.

Anxiety-related impairment among youth in residential treatment facilities is common, but quality of life (QOL) among this intensive, treatment-seeking population remains largely unexplored. The pu...

TPS3633 Background: Meta-analysis of 6 RCTs indicates that anti-EGFR agents are ineffective in rPTL RAS-wt aCRC (Arnold D, et al. Ann Oncol. 2017;28:1713-1729). However, data from the phase III PICCOLO and COIN trials suggest high tumor expression of the EGFR ligands, EREG and AREG, confers sensitivity to anti-EGFR agents in a subset of this population (Adams RA, et al. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(30_suppl):32-32; Seligmann JF, et al. Ann Oncol. 2020;31:1021-1029). More data is needed before ligand assessment can be integrated into routine care: to date, EREG/AREG mRNA has only been assessed retrospectively, and feasibility of timely delivery of results must be demonstrated. The ARIEL trial aims to determine whether first-line chemotherapy plus cetuximab or panitumumab is more effective than chemotherapy alone in achieving early tumor shrinkage (ETS) after 8 weeks of treatment in patients (pts) with EREG/AREG-high rPTL RAS-wt aCRC. Methods: ARIEL is a multicentre, phase IV, open label, biomarker enrichment RCT. Pts with previously untreated rPTL RAS-wt (or RAS-unknown) aCRC are eligible for registration and EREG/AREG assessment using archival FFPE tumor tissue. Those confirmed as RAS-wt EREG/AREG-high (expression above 30th centile based on PICCOLO)3 are eligible for randomization to chemotherapy alone (fluoropyrimidine backbone plus irinotecan or oxaliplatin) vs chemotherapy (FOLFOX or FOLFIRI) plus anti-EGFR therapy (panitumumab or cetuximab) (options at physician’s discretion). Pts with EREG/AREG-low tumors are not eligible for randomization but may consent to translational research and follow-up. The primary endpoint is ETS at 8 weeks (≥30%, yes vs no). Secondary endpoints are depth of response at 16 weeks, overall survival, overall treatment utility, pt-reported quality of life, cost per QALY, pt acceptability of trial procedures, and safety. Pre-trial work-up included cross-validation of the EREG/AREG RT-qPCR assay at trial laboratories in Leeds and Birmingham, UK demonstrating reproducibility of biomarker results. Recruitment to an internal pilot phase is currently ongoing to demonstrate feasibility of timely delivery of biomarker results to sites (lower limit of 90% CI of mean result delivery time for first 20 pts must include 3 weeks). Mean monthly recruitment rate will be assessed at 18 months to determine likelihood of completion of the trial within the 3 year recruitment period. ARIEL is funded by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and opened the first of 40 sites in February 2022. 440 pts will be registered for biomarker assessment in order to randomize 162 pts. All pts will be followed-up to 1 year post-randomisation, with a final assessment in all pts when the last pt has completed a year of follow-up (median 3.5 years). ARIEL is participating in the NIHR Associate PI scheme. Clinical trial information: 11061442.

Highlights • MR-only patient positioning for anal and rectal cancers using CBCT. • MR-only results in systematic positioning differences to of, Background and Purpose Magnetic resonance (MR)-only treatment pathways require either the MR-simulation or synthetic-computed tomography (sCT) as an alternative reference image for cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) patient position verification. This study assessed whether using T2 MR or sCT as CBCT reference images introduces systematic registration errors as compared to CT for anal and rectal cancers. Materials and Methods A total of 32 patients (18 rectum,14 anus) received pre-treatment CT- and T2 MR- simulation. Routine treatment CBCTs were acquired. sCTs were generated using a validated research model. The local clinical registration protocol, using a grey-scale registration algorithm, was performed for 216 CBCTs using CT, MR and sCT as the reference image. Linear mixed effects modelling identified systematic differences between modalities. Results Systematic translation and rotation differences to CT for MR were −0.3 to + 0.3 mm and −0.1 to 0.4° for anal cancers and −0.4 to 0.0 mm and 0.0 to 0.1° for rectal cancers, and for sCT were −0.4 to + 0.8 mm, −0.1 to 0.2° for anal cancers and −0.6 to + 0.2 mm, −0.1 to + 0.1° for rectal cancers. Conclusions T2 MR or sCT can successfully be used as reference images for anal and rectal cancer CBCT position verification with systematic differences to CT

Summary Background Radical surgery via total mesorectal excision might not be the optimal first-line treatment for early-stage rectal cancer. An organ-preserving strategy with selective total mesorectal excision could reduce the adverse effects of treatment without substantially compromising oncological outcomes. We investigated the feasibility of recruiting patients to a randomised trial comparing an organ-preserving strategy with total mesorectal excision. Methods TREC was a randomised, open-label feasibility study done at 21 tertiary referral centres in the UK. Eligible participants were aged 18 years or older with rectal adenocarcinoma, staged T2 or lower, with a maximum diameter of 30 mm or less; patients with lymph node involvement or metastases were excluded. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) by use of a computer-based randomisation service to undergo organ preservation with short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery after 8–10 weeks, or total mesorectal excision. Where the transanal endoscopic microsurgery specimen showed histopathological features associated with an increased risk of local recurrence, patients were considered for planned early conversion to total mesorectal excision. A non-randomised prospective registry captured patients for whom randomisation was considered inappropriate, because of a strong clinical indication for one treatment group. The primary endpoint was cumulative randomisation at 12, 18, and 24 months. Secondary outcomes evaluated safety, efficacy, and health-related quality of life assessed with the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ C30 and CR29 in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN14422743. Findings Between Feb 22, 2012, and Dec 19, 2014, 55 patients were randomly assigned at 15 sites; 27 to organ preservation and 28 to radical surgery. Cumulatively, 18 patients had been randomly assigned at 12 months, 31 at 18 months, and 39 at 24 months. No patients died within 30 days of initial treatment, but one patient randomly assigned to organ preservation died within 6 months following conversion to total mesorectal excision with anastomotic leakage. Eight (30%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation were converted to total mesorectal excision. Serious adverse events were reported in four (15%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation versus 11 (39%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·04, χ2 test). Serious adverse events associated with organ preservation were most commonly due to rectal bleeding or pain following transanal endoscopic microsurgery (reported in three cases). Radical total mesorectal excision was associated with medical and surgical complications including anastomotic leakage (two patients), kidney injury (two patients), cardiac arrest (one patient), and pneumonia (two patients). Histopathological features that would be considered to be associated with increased risk of tumour recurrence if observed after transanal endoscopic microsurgery alone were present in 16 (59%) of 27 patients randomly assigned to organ preservation, versus 24 (86%) of 28 randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision (p=0·03, χ2 test). Eight (30%) of 27 patients assigned to organ preservation achieved a complete response to radiotherapy. Patients who were randomly assigned to organ preservation showed improvements in patient-reported bowel toxicities and quality of life and function scores in multiple items compared to those who were randomly assigned to total mesorectal excision, which were sustained over 36 months’ follow-up. The non-randomised registry comprised 61 patients who underwent organ preservation and seven who underwent radical surgery. Non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation were older than randomised patients and more likely to have life-limiting comorbidities. Serious adverse events occurred in ten (16%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation versus one (14%) of seven who underwent total mesorectal excision. 24 (39%) of 61 non-randomised patients who underwent organ preservation had high-risk histopathological features, while 25 (41%) of 61 achieved a complete response. Overall, organ preservation was achieved in 19 (70%) of 27 randomised patients and 56 (92%) of 61 non-randomised patients. Interpretation Short-course radiotherapy followed by transanal endoscopic microsurgery achieves high levels of organ preservation, with relatively low morbidity and indications of improved quality of life. These data support the use of organ preservation for patients considered unsuitable for primary total mesorectal excision due to the short-term risks associated with this surgery, and support further evaluation of short-course radiotherapy to achieve organ preservation in patients considered fit for total mesorectal excision. Larger randomised studies, such as the ongoing STAR-TREC study, are needed to more precisely determine oncological outcomes following different organ preservation treatment schedules. Funding Cancer Research UK.

Highlights • Accurate Synthetic-CT (sCT) generation for anorectal cancers. • Deep learning sCT generation with varied input data. • T2-SPACE MRI sequence use for generalisable pelvic synthetic-CT., Background and purpose Comprehensive dosimetric analysis is required prior to the clinical implementation of pelvic MR-only sites, other than prostate, due to the limited number of site specific synthetic-CT (sCT) dosimetric assessments in the literature. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of a deep learning-based, conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) model for a large ano-rectal cancer cohort. The following challenges were investigated; T2-SPACE MR sequences, patient data from multiple centres and the impact of sex and cancer site on sCT quality. Method RT treatment position CT and T2-SPACE MR scans, from two centres, were collected for 90 ano-rectal patients. A cGAN model trained using a focal loss function, was trained and tested on 46 and 44 CT-MR ano-rectal datasets, paired using deformable registration, respectively. VMAT plans were created on CT and recalculated on sCT. Dose differences and gamma indices assessed sCT dosimetric accuracy. A linear mixed effect (LME) model assessed the impact of centre, sex and cancer site. Results A mean PTV D95% dose difference of 0.1% (range: −0.5% to 0.7%) was found between CT and sCT. All gamma index (1%/1 mm threshold) measurements were >99.0%. The LME model found the impact of modality, cancer site, sex and centre was clinically insignificant (effect ranges: −0.4% and 0.3%). The mean dose difference for all OAR constraints was 0.1%. Conclusion Focal loss cGAN models using T2-SPACE MR sequences from multiple centres can produce generalisable, dosimetrically accurate sCTs for ano-rectal cancers.

Highlights • Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide. • Gold standard chemoradiotherapy is not deliverable for the majority of patients. • Radiation-induced DNA damage repair is an actionable mechanism of radioresistance. • Careful trial design is essential to elicit maximum impact on therapeutic index. • CONCORDE is a platform study of novel drug/radiotherapy combinations in lung cancer., Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for ‘gold standard’ treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding.

This review aimed to determine the clinician and patient reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently usedin randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of radical radiation therapy for nonmetastatic prostate cancer to report acute and late adverse events (AEs), review the quality of methodology and PRO reporting, and report the prevalence of acute and late AEs.The MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched between April and August 2014 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement. Identified reports were reviewed according to the PRO Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. In all, 1149 records were screened, and 21 articles were included in the final review.We determined the acute and late AEs for 9040 patients enrolled in 15 different RCTs. Only clinician reported instruments were used to report acute AEs3 months (eg, Radiation Therapy Oncology Group [RTOG] and Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE]). For late clinician reporting, the Late Effects on Normal Tissues-Subjective, Objective, Management and Analytic scale and RTOG were used and were often augmented with additional items to provide comprehensive coverage of sexual functioning and anorectal symptoms. Some late AEs were reported (48% articles) using PROs (eg, ULCA-PCI [University of California, Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index], FACT-G and P [Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy GeneralProstate Module], EORTC QLQC-30 + PR25 [European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life QuestionnaireProstate Module]); however, a definitive "preferred" instrument was not evident.Our findings are at odds with recent movements toward including patient voices in reporting of AEs and patient engagement in clinical research. We recommend including PRO to evaluate radical radiation therapy before, during, and after the treatment to fully capture patient experiences, and we support the development of predictive models for late effects based on the severity of early toxicity.Patient reporting of acute and late AEs is underrepresented in radiation therapy trials. We recommend working toward a consistent approach to PRO assessment of radiation therapy-related AEs.

The current study examined quality of life (QOL) and its clinical correlates among 225 intensive treatment-seeking children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) using the Pediatric Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (PQ-LES-Q). Youth completed the PQ-LES-Q along with self-report measures assessing functional impairment, anxiety sensitivity, OCD symptoms, nonspecific anxiety, depression, and social anxiety. Parents completed measures on their child's anxiety, the presence of inattention/hyperactivity, depression, functional impairment, and frequency of family accommodation of symptoms. Contrary to expectation, child-reported OCD symptoms did not significantly predict QOL; however, lower overall QOL was strongly associated with the presence of comorbid major depressive disorder (g=3D −0.76) and slightly related to comorbid social phobia (g=3D −0.36). These results suggest that assessing and addressing comorbid conditions in the treatment of youth with OCD is an important component of intensive treatment.

e24117 Background: The EORTC Item Library is an online, interactive platform comprised of 950 distinct questions (items) from 67 different EORTC patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, covering a range of symptomatic toxicities, types of functioning, and impact on quality of life. These PROs provide a patient-centred perspective, complementing clinician adverse event (AE) reporting using classifications like the CTCAE. In order to summarize the coverage of symptomatic toxicities and facilitate the identification of items through use of a standardized framework, a mapping study was carried out, aimed at creating a coding system to classify EORTC items according to the CTCAE and link them to corresponding AEs. Methods: All items were searched for within the CTCAE (v5.0) using a deductive approach. Items were coded as linked if they were described within an AE’s title, description, or grading. Items not suitable for CTCAE coding were inductively assigned a descriptive classification. Descriptive classifications were also applied along with CTCAE codes when they provided additional information. Symptoms described in EORTC items but not located in the CTCAE were coded as missing and additional codes were assigned to highlight EORTC items capturing multiple underlying issues and diagnosis only CTCAE codes. Two raters independently coded 249 items and agreement was calculated. The remaining 701 items were coded by one rater and verified by the second, with a third introduced to discuss any discrepancies until a consensus was reached. Results: Agreement for raters following independent coding was 77.9% for at least one AE per item. In total, 625 (65.8%) items were linked to 208 different AEs. Fatigue was the most commonly linked AE, representing 4.9% of linked AEs. The majority of linked items were associated with one (65.6%) or two (23.5%) AEs, with some linked to three or more (10.9%). Multiple linkage resulted from different symptoms relating to the same issue/diagnosis or one symptom relating to multiple diagnoses. Two symptoms captured by six EORTC items but not found in the CTCAE were identified: bowel urgency and tenesmus. Seven descriptive non-CTCAE classifications emerged, with most of these covering the emotional impact of symptom, diagnosis, or treatment (33.6%) and information/satisfaction with care (31.7%). Nineteen items (2%) were linked to multiple underlying issues, and 43 (4.5%) to diagnosis only CTCAE codes. Conclusions: The EORTC Item Library provides extensive coverage of CTCAE symptomatic toxicities, along with other issues that are important to cancer patients, including emotional well-being and satisfaction with care services. Classifying symptomatic PRO items following the CTCAE clinical framework may facilitate future PRO selection and use in clinical trials and routine care.

International audience