Search

Background: Salvage radiation therapy (SRT) and surveillance for low-risk prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recurrence have competing risks and benefits. The efficacy of early SRT to the prostate bed with or without pelvic lymph nodes compared to surveillance in patients with PSA recurrence after radical prostatectomy and no identifiable recurrent disease evident on prostate specific membrane antigen-positron emission tomography/computer tomography (PSMA-PET/CT) is unknown., Study Design: The Dedicated Imaging Post-Prostatectomy for Enhanced Radiotherapy outcomes (DIPPER) is an open-label, multicentre, randomised Phase II trial., Endpoints: The primary endpoint is 3-year event-free survival, with events comprising one of PSA recurrence (PSA ≥0.2 ng/mL higher than baseline), radiological evidence of metastatic disease, or initiation of systemic or other salvage treatments. Secondary endpoints include patient-reported outcomes, treatment patterns, participant perceptions, and cost-effectiveness., Eligibility Criteria: Eligible participants have PSA recurrence of prostate cancer after radical prostatectomy, defined by serum PSA level of 0.2-0.5 ng/mL, deemed low risk according to modified European Association of Urology biochemical recurrence risk criteria (International Society for Urological Pathology Grade Group ≤2, PSA doubling time >12 months), with no definite/probable recurrent prostate cancer on PSMA-PET/CT., Patients and Methods: A total of 100 participants will be recruited from five Australian centres and randomised 1:1 to SRT or surveillance. Participants will undergo 6-monthly clinical evaluation for up to 36 months. Androgen-deprivation therapy is not permissible. Enrolment commenced May 2023., Trial Registration: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN: ACTRN12622001478707)., (© 2023 The Authors. BJU International published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of BJU International.)

Background: Febrile neutropenia (FN) in children with cancer generally requires in-hospital care, but low-risk patients may be successfully managed in an outpatient setting, potentially reducing the overall healthcare costs. Updated data on the costs of FN care are lacking., Methods: A bottom-up microcosting analysis was conducted from the healthcare system perspective using data collected alongside the Australian PICNICC (Predicting Infectious Complications of Neutropenic sepsis In Children with Cancer) study. Inpatient costs were accessed from hospital administrative records and outpatient costs from Medicare data. Costs were stratified by risk status (low/high risk) according to the PICNICC criteria. Estimated mean costs were obtained through bootstrapping and using a linear model to account for multiple events across individuals and other clinical factors that may impact costs., Results: The total costs of FN care were significantly higher for FN events classified as high-risk ($17,827, 95% confidence interval [CI]: $17,193-$18,461) compared to low-risk ($10,574, 95% CI: $9818-$11,330). In-hospital costs were significantly higher for high-risk compared to low-risk events, despite no differences in the cost structure, mean cost per day, and pattern of resource use. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was the only modifiable factor significantly associated with total costs of care. Excluding antineoplastics, antimicrobials are the most commonly used medications in the inpatient and outpatient setting for the overall period of analysis., Conclusion: The FN costs are driven by in-hospital admission and LOS. This suggests that the outpatient management of low-risk patients is likely to reduce the in-hospital cost of treating an FN event. Further research will determine if shifting the cost to the outpatient setting remains cost-effective overall., (© 2023 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Purpose: The use of stereotactic ablative body radiation therapy (SABR) in advanced cancer care is increasing, yet the cost-effectiveness of single-fraction (SF) versus multifraction (MF) SABR in pulmonary oligometastases is unknown., Methods: A prespecified cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted of the Trans Tasman Radiation Oncology Group 13.01 - SAFRON II - randomized trial comparing SF with MF SABR in 87 patients with 133 pulmonary oligometastases. A partitioned survival model assessed costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) over the within-trial period (4 years) and longer-term (10 years). Costs reflected a societal perspective, expressed in Australian dollars (A$) using 2020 prices and were estimated using patient level data on health care utilization for radiation therapy (including patient time), post-radiation systemic therapy and treatment of adverse effects. Quality of life was assessed using the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was expressed as the cost per QALY gained for SF versus MF SABR, with uncertainty assessed using deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses., Results: SF cost less than MF for initial therapy (difference of A$1194/patient). Mean time to initiation of systemic drug therapy did not differ between arms (P = .94). Numerical differences in survival favoring SF resulted in greater overall health care use for the within-trial period. The within-trial ICER was A$15,821/QALY and A$23,265/QALY over the longer term. Results were most sensitive to the cost of postprogression therapies and utility values. The sensitivity analysis indicated that SF SABR has a 97% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay of A$50,000/QALY., Conclusions: SF has lower initial costs and is highly likely to be cost-effective. Time to initiation of systemic therapy associated with disease progression is highly patient relevant and is a major driver of cost-effectiveness. Comparisons for SF SABR with nonradiation therapy approaches to the treatment of pulmonary oligometastases warrant further investigation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Grades 2 and 3 gliomas (G2/3 gliomas), when combined, are the second largest group of malignant brain tumours in adults. The outcomes for G2/3 gliomas at progression approach the dismal outcomes for glioblastoma (GBM), yet there is a paucity of trials for Australian patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas compared with patients with GBM. LUMOS will be a pilot umbrella study for patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas that aims to match patients to targeted therapies based on molecular screening with contemporaneous tumour tissue. Participants in whom no actionable or no druggable mutation is found, or in whom the matching drug is not available, will form a comparator arm and receive standard of care chemotherapy. The objective of the LUMOS trial is to assess the feasibility of this approach in a multicentre study across five sites in Australia, with a view to establishing a national molecular screening platform for patient treatment guided by the mutational analysis of contemporaneous tissue biopsies METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be a multicentre pilot study enrolling patients with recurrent grade 2/3 gliomas that have previously been treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy at diagnosis or at first relapse. Contemporaneous tumour tissue at the time of first relapse, defined as tissue obtained within 6 months of relapse and without subsequent intervening therapy, will be obtained from patients. Molecular screening will be performed by targeted next-generation sequencing at the reference laboratory (PathWest, Perth, Australia). RNA and DNA will be extracted from representative formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue scrolls or microdissected from sections on glass slides tissue sections following a review of the histology by pathologists. Extracted nucleic acid will be quantified by Qubit Fluorometric Quantitation (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Library preparation and targeted capture will be performed using the TruSight Tumor 170 (TST170) kit and samples sequenced on NextSeq 550 (Illumina) using NextSeq V.2.5 hi output reagents, according to the manufacturer's instructions. Data analysis will be performed using the Illumina BaseSpace TST170 app v1.02 and a custom tertiary pipeline, implemented within the Clinical Genomics Workspace software platform from PierianDx (also refer to section 3.2). Primary outcomes for the study will be the number of patients enrolled and the number of patients who complete molecular screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of screened patients enrolled; proportion of patients who complete molecular screening; the turn-around time of molecular screening; and the value of a brain tumour specific multi-disciplinary tumour board, called the molecular tumour advisory panel as measured by the proportion of patients in whom the treatment recommendation was refined compared with the recommendations from the automated bioinformatics platform of the reference laboratory testing., Ethics and Dissemination: The study was approved by the lead Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District: Protocol No. X19-0383. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki 2013, guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007, updated 2018 and as amended periodically). Results will be disseminated using a range of media channels including newsletters, social media, scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12620000087954; Pre-results., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)