Search

Pembrolizumab has received approval in the UK as first-line monotherapy for recurrent and/or metastatic HNSCC (R/M HNSCC) following the results of the KEYNOTE-048 trial, which demonstrated a longer overall survival (OS) in comparison to the EXTREME chemotherapy regimen in patients with a combined positive score (CPS) ≥1. In this article, we provide retrospective real-world data on the role of pembrolizumab monotherapy as first-line systemic therapy for HNSCC across 18 centers in the UK from March 20, 2020 to May 31, 2021. 211 patients were included, and in the efficacy analysis, the objective response rate (ORR) was 24.7%, the median progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.8 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.6-6.1), and the median OS was 10.8 months (95% CI 9.0-12.5). Pembrolizumab monotherapy was well tolerated, with 18 patients having to stop treatment owing to immune-related adverse events (irAEs). 53 patients proceeded to second-line treatment with a median PFS2 of 10.2 months (95% CI: 8.8-11.5). Moreover, patients with documented irAEs had a statistically significant longer median PFS (11.3 vs. 3.3 months; log-rank p value = <.001) and median OS (18.8 vs. 8.9 months; log-rank p value <.001). The efficacy and safety of pembrolizumab first-line monotherapy for HNSCC has been validated using real-world data., (© 2024 The Authors. International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)

Introduction/background: Patients receiving treatment for head and neck cancer (HNC) with curative intent, will potentially undergo primary or adjuvant radiation therapy (RT). These patients require supportive management from an extended multi-disciplinary team, to manage the severe toxicities and distress that a course of treatment can bring. A survey was designed to determine if there were changes in the experience of HNC patients attending for radical RT, from the beginning to the end of their treatment course. During the conduct of the survey the COVID-19 pandemic began. As a result cancer services were adapted to keep patients receiving treatment protected from the virus, while continuing to treat their malignant disease. This enabled a comparison of HNC patient experiences pre-pandemic (PP) and during the pandemic (DP). The study aimed to assess the impact of changes in treatment logistics, implemented as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, on the patient experience, analysing and comparing how well patients understood the information provided to them, their level of distress and anxiety during treatment, and their overall satisfaction with the experience., Methods: Eligible patients were receiving radical RT for HNC of any sub-site or histological type. Identical, anonymous surveys were distributed to patients at week 1 and the final week of RT. The initial PP questionnaire (distributed December 2019 to 11 th March 2020) contained 22 questions with space for free text. The questionnaire was amended DP to include 6 additional COVID-19 related questions (distributed June to November 2020)., Results: One hundred and eighty two surveys were returned; 95 (52%) PP and 87 (48%) DP. Patients were moderately distressed from wearing the immobilisation mask towards the end of treatment DP with a statistically significant difference in the final week, median (IQR) values of 1 (0-4) PP and 2 (1-6) DP, p=0.024. Patients reported increased distress by attending daily for treatment by the final week of RT DP, with a PP and DP median of 1 (0-3) and 2 (1-4) respectively, p=0.039. Patients reporting increased levels of distress about attending for RT also reported high levels of anxiety about COVID-19 (r=0.40, p=0.005). COVID-19 anxiety score displayed a weak inverse association with overall treatment satisfaction score (r=-0.28, p=0.008)., Conclusion: Despite the adapted COVID-19 working practices implemented and the challenges a course of head and neck RT entails, patients reported a positive experience attending for treatment, both PP and DP., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Radiotherapy delivery regimens can vary between a single fraction (SF) and multiple fractions (MF) given daily for up to several weeks depending on the location of the cancer or metastases. With limited evidence comparing fractionation regimens for oligometastases, there is support to explore toxicity levels to nearby organs at risk as a primary outcome while using SF and MF stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as well as explore differences in patient-reported quality of life and experience., Methods: This study will randomize 598 patients in a 1:1 ratio between the standard arm (MF SABR) and the experimental arm (SF SABR). This trial is designed as two randomized controlled trials within one patient population for resource efficiency. The primary objective of the first randomization is to determine if SF SABR is non-inferior to MF SABR, with respect to healthcare provider (HCP)-reported grade 3-5 adverse events (AEs) that are related to SABR. Primary endpoint is toxicity while secondary endpoints include lesional control rate (LCR), and progression-free survival (PFS). The second randomization (BC Cancer sites only) will allocate participants to either complete quality of life (QoL) questionnaires only; or QoL questionnaires and a symptom-specific survey with symptom-guided HCP intervention. The primary objective of the second randomization is to determine if radiation-related symptom questionnaire-guided HCP intervention results in improved reported QoL as measured by the EuroQoL-5-dimensions-5levels (EQ-5D-5L) instrument. The primary endpoint is patient-reported QoL and secondary endpoints include: persistence/resolution of symptom reporting, QoL, intervention cost effectiveness, resource utilization, and overall survival., Discussion: This study will compare SF and MF SABR in the treatment of oligometastases and oligoprogression to determine if there is non-inferior toxicity for SF SABR in selected participants with 1-5 oligometastatic lesions. This study will also compare patient-reported QoL between participants who receive radiation-related symptom-guided HCP intervention and those who complete questionnaires alone., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT05784428. Date of Registration: 23 March 2023., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

In 25% of patients presenting with embolic stroke, a cause is not determined. Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a commonly identified mechanism of stroke in this population, particularly in older patients. Conventional investigations are used to detect AF, but can we predict AF in this population and generally? We performed a systematic review to identify potential predictors of AF on 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG)., Method: We conducted a search of EMBASE and Medline databases for prospective and retrospective cohorts, meta-analyses or case-control studies of ECG abnormalities in sinus rhythm predicting subsequent atrial fibrillation. We assessed quality of studies based on the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and data were extracted according to PRISMA guidelines., Results: We identified 44 studies based on our criteria. ECG patterns that predicted the risk of developing AF included interatrial block, P-wave terminal force lead V1, P-wave dispersion, abnormal P-wave-axis, abnormal P-wave amplitude, prolonged PR interval, left ventricular hypertrophy, QT prolongation, ST-T segment abnormalities and atrial premature beats. Furthermore, we identified that factors such as increased age, high CHADS-VASC, chronic renal disease further increase the positive-predictive value of some of these parameters. Several of these have been successfully incorporated into clinical scoring systems to predict AF., Conclusion: There are several ECG abnormalities that can predict AF both independently, and with improved predictive value when combined with clinical risk factors, and if incorporated into clinical risk scores. Improved and validated predictive models could streamline selection of patients for cardiac monitoring and initiation of oral anticoagulants., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)