Search

Abstract Background Therapeutic options for early-stage hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individual patients can be limited by tumor and location, liver dysfunction and comorbidities. Many patients with early-stage HCC do not receive curative-intent therapies. Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as an effective, non-invasive HCC treatment option, however, randomized evidence for SABR in the first line setting is lacking. Methods Trans-Tasman Radiation Oncology Group (TROG) 21.07 SOCRATES-HCC is a phase II, prospective, randomised trial comparing SABR to other current standard of care therapies for patients with a solitary HCC ≤ 8 cm, ineligible for surgical resection or transplantation. The study is divided into 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 will compromise 118 patients with tumors ≤ 3 cm eligible for thermal ablation randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to thermal ablation or SABR. Cohort 2 will comprise 100 patients with tumors > 3 cm up to 8 cm in size, or tumors ≤ 3 cm ineligible for thermal ablation, randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to SABR or best other standard of care therapy including transarterial therapies. The primary objective is to determine whether SABR results in superior freedom from local progression (FFLP) at 2 years compared to thermal ablation in cohort 1 and compared to best standard of care therapy in cohort 2. Secondary endpoints include progression free survival, overall survival, adverse events, patient reported outcomes and health economic analyses. Discussion The SOCRATES-HCC study will provide the first randomized, multicentre evaluation of the efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness of SABR versus other standard of care therapies in the first line treatment of unresectable, early-stage HCC. It is a broad, multicentre collaboration between hepatology, interventional radiology and radiation oncology groups around Australia, coordinated by TROG Cancer Research. Trial registration anzctr.org.au, ACTRN12621001444875, registered 21 October 2021.

Summary: Background: Prompt antibiotic administration for febrile neutropenia (FN) is standard of care, and targets of time to antibiotics (TTA)

BackgroundAdvanced cancer significantly impacts patients’ and family caregivers’ quality of life. When patients and caregivers are supported concurrently as a dyad, the well-being of each person is optimized. Family, Outlook, Communication, Uncertainty, Symptom management (FOCUS) is a dyadic, psychoeducational intervention developed in the United States, shown to improve the well-being and quality of life of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregivers. Originally, a nurse-delivered in-person intervention, FOCUS has been adapted into a self-administered web-based intervention for European delivery. ObjectiveThe aims of this study are to (1) adapt FOCUS to the Australian context (FOCUSau); (2) evaluate the effectiveness of FOCUSau in improving the emotional well-being and self-efficacy of patients with advanced cancer and their primary caregiver relative to usual care control group; (3) compare health care use between the intervention and control groups; and (4) assess the acceptability, feasibility, and scalability of FOCUSau in order to inform future maintainable implementation of the intervention within the Australian health care system. MethodsFOCUS will be adapted prior to trial commencement, using an iterative stakeholder feedback process to create FOCUSau. To examine the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of FOCUSau and assess its acceptability, feasibility, and scalability, we will undertake a hybrid type 1 implementation study consisting of a phase 3 (clinical effectiveness) trial along with an observational implementation study. Participants will include patients with cancer who are older than 18 years, able to access the internet, and able to identify a primary support person or caregiver who can also be approached for participation. The sample size consists of 173 dyads in each arm (ie, 346 dyads in total). Patient-caregiver dyad data will be collected at 3 time points—baseline (T0) completed prerandomization; first follow-up (T1; N=346) at 12 weeks post baseline; and second follow-up (T2) at 24 weeks post baseline. ResultsThe study was funded in March 2022. Recruitment commenced in July 2024. ConclusionsIf shown to be effective, this intervention will improve the well-being of patients with advanced cancer and their family caregivers, regardless of their location or current level of health care support. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT06082128; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06082128 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)PRR1-10.2196/55252

Summary: Background: SCORE is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) to examine shared oncologist and general practitioner (GP) follow-up for survivors of colorectal cancer (CRC). SCORE aimed to show that shared care (SC) was non-inferior to usual care (UC) on the EORTC QLQ-C30 Global Health Status/Quality of Life (GHQ-QoL) scale to 12 months. Methods: The study recruited patients from five public hospitals in Melbourne, Australia between February 2017 and May 2021. Patients post curative intent treatment for stage I–III CRC underwent 1:1 randomisation to SC and UC. SC replaced two oncologist visits with GP visits and included a survivorship care plan and primary care management guidelines. Assessments were at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Difference between groups on GHQ-QoL to 12 months was estimated from a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), with a non-inferiority margin (NIM) of −10 points. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (QoL); patient perceptions of care; costs and clinical care processes (CEA tests, recurrences). Registration ACTRN12617000004369p. Findings: 150 consenting patients were randomised to SC (N = 74) or UC (N = 76); 11 GPs declined. The mean (SD) GHQ-QoL scores at 12 months were 72 (20.2) for SC versus 73 (17.2) for UC. The MMRM mean estimate of GHQ-QoL across the 6 month and 12 month follow-up was 69 for SC and 73 for UC, mean difference −4.0 (95% CI: −9.0 to 0.9). The lower limit of the 95% CI did not cross the NIM. There was no clear evidence of differences on other QoL, unmet needs or satisfaction scales. At 12 months, the majority preferred SC (40/63; 63%) in the SC group, with equal preference for SC (22/62; 35%) and specialist care (22/62; 35%) in UC group. CEA completion was higher in SC. Recurrences similar between arms. Patients in SC on average incurred USD314 less in health costs versus UC patients. Interpretation: SC seems to be an appropriate and cost-effective model of follow-up for CRC survivors. Funding: Victorian Cancer Agency and Cancer Australia.

Purpose: To assess the literature on men’s preferences and perceptions regarding prostate cancer radiation therapy. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken as per JBI guidelines. Searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and Science Direct with search terms including “prostate cancer,” “radiotherapy,” “radiation therapy,” “radiation oncology,” “patient preferences,” “patient perceptions” and “patient experience.” The resultant studies were mapped and grouped according to the emergent themes and pathway stages. Results: A total of 779 titles and abstracts were screened by two independent reviewers. Fifty-two full-text studies were reviewed, with 27 eligible for inclusion. There were 4 pre-treatment, 13 during treatment and 10 post-treatment studies covering broad themes of information needs (n = 3), preferences and decisions (n = 6), general experiences (n = 8), side effects (n = 6), and support (n = 4). There were a mix of methodologies, including 11 qualitative, 14 quantitative (including four preference studies), one mixed methods and one narrative review. Conclusion: There were only four preference studies, with the remaining 23 reporting on perceptions. Overall, there is a paucity of literature regarding patient preferences and perceptions of prostate cancer radiation therapy, particularly when considering how many clinical and technical studies are published in the area. This highlights opportunities for future research.

Background: The complexity of prostate cancer care can impact on patient understanding and participation in shared decision-making. This study used a survey-based approach to investigate patients’ recall of their prostate cancer treatment, and more broadly, to understand the perceptions of patients and the general population of prostate cancer treatment. Method: The survey was completed by 236 patients with prostate cancer (PCa cohort) and 240 participants from the general population of Australia (GenPop cohort). Free-text comments from both cohorts were analysed using content analysis. The PCa cohort reported which treatments and image-guidance related procedures they had received. These patient-reports were compared to medical records and analysed using proportion agreement, kappa statistics and regression analysis. Results: 135 (57%) PCa and 99 (41%) GenPop respondents provided at least one comment. Five major themes were identified by both cohorts: sharing experiences of treatment; preferences insights and reflections; mindsets; general commentary on the survey; and factors missing from the survey. There was overall good treatment recall amongst the PCa cohort, with proportions of correct recall ranging from 97.3% for chemotherapy to 66.8% for hormone therapy. There was a tendency for younger patients (

Abstract Background Pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) therapy is accompanied by treatment-related toxicities (TRTs) and impaired quality of life. In Australia and New Zealand, children with ALL are treated with either Children’s Oncology Group (COG) or international Berlin-Frankfurt-Munster (iBFM) Study Group-based therapy. We conducted a prospective registry study to document symptomatic TRTs (venous thrombosis, neurotoxicity, pancreatitis and bone toxicity), compare TRT outcomes to retrospective TRT data, and measure the impact of TRTs on children’s general and cancer-related health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and parents’ emotional well-being. Methods Parents of children with newly diagnosed ALL were invited to participate in the ASSET (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia Subtypes and Side Effects from Treatment) study and a prospective, longitudinal HRQoL study. TRTs were reported prospectively and families completed questionnaires for general (Healthy Utility Index Mark 3) and cancer specific (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL)-Cancer Module) health related quality of life as well the Emotion Thermometer to assess emotional well-being. Results Beginning in 2016, 260 pediatric patients with ALL were enrolled on the TRT registry with a median age at diagnosis of 59 months (range 1–213 months), 144 males (55.4%), majority with Pre-B cell immunophenotype, n = 226 (86.9%), 173 patients (66.5%) treated according to COG platform with relatively equal distribution across risk classification sub-groups. From 2018, 79 families participated in the HRQoL study through the first year of treatment. There were 74 TRT recorded, reflecting a 28.5% risk of developing a TRT. Individual TRT incidence was consistent with previous studies, being 7.7% for symptomatic VTE, 11.9% neurotoxicity, 5.4% bone toxicity and 5.0% pancreatitis. Children’s HRQoL was significantly lower than population norms throughout the first year of treatment. An improvement in general HRQoL, measured by the HUI3, contrasted with the lack of improvement in cancer-related HRQoL measured by the PedsQL Cancer Module over the first 12 months. There were no persisting differences in the HRQoL impact of COG compared to iBFM therapy. Conclusions It is feasible to prospectively monitor TRT incidence and longitudinal HRQoL impacts during ALL therapy. Early phases of ALL therapy, regardless of treatment platform, result in prolonged reductions in cancer-related HRQoL.

Abstract Background Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation. Methods This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery. Discussion This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021.

Introduction Glioblastoma is the most common aggressive primary central nervous system cancer in adults characterised by uniformly poor survival. Despite maximal safe resection and postoperative radiotherapy with concurrent and adjuvant temozolomide-based chemotherapy, tumours inevitably recur. Imaging with O-(2-[18F]-fluoroethyl)-L-tyrosine (FET) positron emission tomography (PET) has the potential to impact adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) planning, distinguish between treatment-induced pseudoprogression versus tumour progression as well as prognostication.Methods and analysis The FET-PET in Glioblastoma (FIG) study is a prospective, multicentre, non-randomised, phase II study across 10 Australian sites and will enrol up to 210 adults aged ≥18 years with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. FET-PET will be performed at up to three time points: (1) following initial surgery and prior to commencement of chemoradiation (FET-PET1); (2) 4 weeks following concurrent chemoradiation (FET-PET2); and (3) within 14 days of suspected clinical and/or radiological progression on MRI (performed at the time of clinical suspicion of tumour recurrence) (FET-PET3). The co-primary outcomes are: (1) to investigate how FET-PET versus standard MRI impacts RT volume delineation and (2) to determine the accuracy and management impact of FET-PET in distinguishing pseudoprogression from true tumour progression. The secondary outcomes are: (1) to investigate the relationships between FET-PET parameters (including dynamic uptake, tumour to background ratio, metabolic tumour volume) and progression-free survival and overall survival; (2) to assess the change in blood and tissue biomarkers determined by serum assay when comparing FET-PET data acquired prior to chemoradiation with other prognostic markers, looking at the relationships of FET-PET versus MRI-determined site/s of progressive disease post chemotherapy treatment with MRI and FET-PET imaging; and (3) to estimate the health economic impact of incorporating FET-PET into glioblastoma management and in the assessment of post-treatment pseudoprogression or recurrence/true progression. Exploratory outcomes include the correlation of multimodal imaging, blood and tumour biomarker analyses with patterns of failure and survival.Ethics and dissemination The study protocol V.2.0 dated 20 November 2020 has been approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Austin Health, Victoria). Other clinical sites will provide oversight through local governance processes, including obtaining informed consent from suitable participants. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice. Results of the FIG study (TROG 18.06) will be disseminated via relevant scientific and consumer forums and peer-reviewed publications.Trial registration number ANZCTR ACTRN12619001735145

BackgroundIn Australia, undiagnosed HIV rates are much higher among migrant gay, bisexual, or other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) than Australian-born GBMSM. HIV self-testing is a promising tool to overcome barriers to HIV testing and improve HIV testing uptake among migrant GBMSM. We compared the preferences for HIV testing services, including HIV self-testing, among migrant and Australian-born GBMSM.MethodsPreferences were assessed via two discrete choice experiments (DCEs). Participants were recruited between December 2017 and January 2018 using online and offline advertising and randomly assigned to complete one of two online DCE surveys. Migrant GBMSM were classified as being born in a country with a reciprocal healthcare agreement (RHCA) with Australia (providing free or subsided health care) or not. Latent class analysis and mixed logit models were used to explore heterogeneity in preferences.FindingsWe recruited 1,606 GBMSM, including 583 migrant men of whom 419 (72%) were born in non-RHCA countries. Most participants preferred a free or cheap oral test with higher accuracy and a shorter window period to facilitate early detection of infections. Cost was more important for men born in non-RHCA countries than for men from RHCA countries or Australia. All groups preferred accessing kits through online distributers or off the shelf purchasing from pharmacies. Men born in RHCA countries least preferred accessing HIV self-testing kits from a medical clinic, while more than half of men from non-RHCA countries most preferred sourcing kits from a clinic. Sex-on-premises venues were the least preferred location to access test kits among all groups. In addition, two latent class analyses explored heterogeneity in preferences among men from non-RHCA countries and we found four latent classes for HIV testing services and two latent classes for HIVST distribution.InterpretationOur findings emphasise the need for high-performing and low-cost HIV self-testing kits that are accessible from a variety of distribution points as a component of Australia's HIV response, especially for those who do not have access to free or subsidised health care in Australia.

ObjectivesFebrile neutropenia (FN) causes treatment disruption and unplanned hospitalization in children with cancer. Serum biomarkers are infrequently used to stratify these patients into high or low risk for serious infection. This study investigated plasma abundance of cytokines in children with FN and their ability to predict bacteraemia.MethodsThirty-three plasma cytokines, C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin (PCT) were measured using ELISA assays in samples taken at FN presentation (n = 79) and within 8–24 h (Day 2; n = 31). Optimal thresholds for prediction of bacteraemia were identified and the predictive ability of biomarkers in addition to routinely available clinical variables was assessed.ResultsThe median age of included FN episodes was 6.0 years and eight (10%) had a bacteraemia. On presentation, elevated PCT, IL-10 and Mip1-beta were significantly associated with bacteraemia, while CRP, IL-6 and IL-8 were not. The combination of PCT (≥0.425 ng/ml) and IL-10 (≥4.37 pg/ml) had a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI 68.8–100%) and specificity of 89% (95% CI 80.0–95.0%) for prediction of bacteraemia, correctly identifying all eight bacteraemia episodes and classifying 16 FN episodes as high-risk. There was limited additive benefit of incorporating clinical variables to this model. On Day 2, there was an 11-fold increase in PCT in episodes with a bacteraemia which was significantly higher than that observed in the non-bacteraemia episodes.ConclusionElevated PCT and IL-10 accurately identified all bacteraemia episodes in our FN cohort and may enhance the early risk stratification process in this population. Prospective validation and implementation is required to determine the impact on health service utilisation.

Background: Reduced intensity treatment of low-risk febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer is safe and improves quality of life. Identifying children with low-risk FN using a validated risk stratification strategy is recommended. This study prospectively validated nine FN clinical decision rules (CDRs) designed to predict infection or adverse outcome. Methods: Data were collected on consecutive FN episodes in this multicentre, prospective validation study. The reproducibility and discriminatory ability of each CDR in the validation cohort was compared to the derivation dataset and details of missed outcomes were reported. Findings: There were 858 FN episodes in 462 patients from eight hospitals included. Bacteraemia occurred in 111 (12·9%) and a non-bacteraemia microbiological documented infection in 185 (21·6%). Eight CDRs exhibited reproducibility and sensitivity ranged from 64% to 96%. Rules that had >85% sensitivity in predicting outcomes classified few patients (

Abstract Background Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is a non-invasive alternative to surgery to control primary renal cell cancer (RCC) in patients that are medically inoperable or at high-risk of post-surgical dialysis. The objective of the FASTRACK II clinical trial is to investigate the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC. Methods FASTRACK II is a single arm, multi-institutional phase II study. Seventy patients will be recruited over 3 years and followed for a total of 5 years. Eligible patients must have a biopsy confirmed diagnosis of primary RCC with a single lesion within a kidney, have ECOG performance ≤2 and be medically inoperable, high risk or decline surgery. Radiotherapy treatment planning is undertaken using four dimensional CT scanning to incorporate the impact of respiratory motion. Treatment must be delivered using a conformal or intensity modulated technique including IMRT, VMAT, Cyberknife or Tomotherapy. The trial includes two alternate fractionation schedules based on tumour size: for tumours ≤4 cm in maximum diameter a single fraction of 26Gy is delivered; and for tumours > 4 cm in maximum diameter 42Gy in three fractions is delivered. The primary outcome of the study is to estimate the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC. Secondary objectives include estimating tolerability, characterising overall survival and cancer specific survival, estimating the distant failure rate, describing toxicity and renal function changes after SABR, and assessment of cost-effectiveness of SABR compared with current therapies. Discussion The present study design allows for multicentre prospective validation of the efficacy of SABR for primary RCC that has been observed from prior single institutional and retrospective series. The study also allows assessment of treatment related toxicity, overall survival, cancer specific survival, freedom from distant failure and renal function post therapy. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02613819, registered Nov 25th 2015.

Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the most common cancer affecting both men and women. Survivors of CRC often experience various physical and psychological effects arising from CRC and its treatment. These effects may last for many years and adversely affect QoL, and they may not be adequately addressed by standard specialist-based follow-up. Optimal management of these effects should harness the expertise of both primary care and specialist care. Shared models of care (involving both the patient’s primary care physician [PCP] and specialist) have the potential to better support survivors and enhance health system efficiency. Methods/design SCORE (Shared care of Colorectal cancer survivors) is a multisite randomised controlled trial designed to optimise and operationalise a shared care model for survivors of CRC, to evaluate the acceptability of the intervention and study processes, and to collect preliminary data regarding the effects of shared care compared with usual care on a range of patient-reported outcomes. The primary outcome is QoL measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Secondary outcomes are satisfaction with care, unmet needs, continuity of care and health resource use. The shared care model involves replacement of two routine specialist follow-up visits with PCP visits, as well as the provision of a tailored survivorship care plan and a survivorship booklet and DVD for CRC survivors. All consenting patients will be randomised 1:1 to either shared care or usual care and will complete questionnaires at three time points over a 12-month period (baseline and at 6 and 12 months). Health care resource use data will also be collected and used to evaluate costs. Discussion The evaluation and implementation of models of care that are responsive to the holistic needs of cancer survivors while reducing the burden on acute care settings is an international priority. Shared care between specialists and PCPs has the potential to enhance patient care and outcomes for CRC survivors while offering improvements in health care resource efficiency. If the findings of the present study show that the shared care intervention is acceptable and feasible for CRC survivors, the intervention may be readily expanded to other groups of cancer survivors. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000004369p . Registered on 3 January 2017; protocol version 4 approved 24 February 2017.

Objective: To determine the efficacy and safety of intermittent docetaxel chemotherapy guided by circulating methylated glutathione S-transferase Pi-1 ( mGSTP1 ) in men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC). Patients and Methods: GUIDE (NCT04918810) is a randomised, two-arm, non-comparative phase-2 trial recruiting 120 patients at six Australian centres. Patients with Prostate Cancer Working Group-3 defined metastatic CRPC who are commencing docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 q3w will be pre-screened for detectable mGSTP1 at baseline ± following two cycles of treatment. Those with detectable plasma mGSTP1 at baseline that becomes undetectable after two cycles of chemotherapy will be eligible for GUIDE. Prior to Cycle 4 of docetaxel, these patients are randomised 2:1 to one of two treatment arms: Arm A (cease docetaxel and reinstitute if mGSTP1 becomes detectable) or Arm B (continue docetaxel 75 mg/m 2 q3w in accordance with clinician’s usual practice). The primary endpoint is radiographic progression-free survival. Secondary endpoints include time on treatment holidays, safety, patient-reported outcomes, overall survival, health resource use, and cost associated with treatment. Enrolment commenced November 2021. Results and Conclusion: The results of this trial will generate data on the clinical utility of mGSTP1 as a novel biomarker to guide treatment de-escalation in metastatic CRPC.

Abstract Background Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. Methods This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. Discussion This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual’s absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p. Registered on 14 November 2016.

Malnutrition is prevalent in patients with head and neck cancer (HNC), impacting outcomes. Despite publication of nutrition care evidence-based guidelines (EBGs), evidence–practice gaps exist. This study aimed to implement and evaluate the integration of a patient-centred, best-practice dietetic model of care into an HNC multidisciplinary team (MDT) to minimise the detrimental sequelae of malnutrition. A mixed-methods, pre–post study design was used to deliver key interventions underpinned by evidence-based implementation strategies to address identified barriers and facilitators to change at individual, team and system levels. A data audit of medical records established baseline adherence to EBGs and clinical parameters prior to implementation in a prospective cohort. Key interventions included a weekly Supportive Care-Led Pre-Treatment Clinic and a Nutrition Care Dashboard highlighting nutrition outcome data integrated into MDT meetings. Focus groups provided team-level evaluation of the new model of care. Economic analysis determined system-level impact. The baseline clinical audit (n = 98) revealed barriers including reactive nutrition care, lack of familiarity with EBGs or awareness of intensive nutrition care needs as well as infrastructure and dietetic resource limitations. Post-implementation data (n = 34) demonstrated improved process and clinical outcomes: pre-treatment dietitian assessment; use of a validated nutrition assessment tool before, during and after treatment. Patients receiving the new model of care were significantly more likely to complete prescribed radiotherapy and systemic therapy. Differences in mean percentage weight change were clinically relevant. At the system level, the new model of care avoided 3.92 unplanned admissions and related costs of $AUD121K per annum. Focus groups confirmed clear support at the multidisciplinary team level for continuing the new model of care. Implementing an evidence-based nutrition model of care in patients with HNC is feasible and can improve outcomes. Benefits of this model of care may be transferrable to other patient groups within cancer settings.