Search

To determine the safety, feasibility, and potential effect of an 18-week exercise intervention for adults with primary brain cancer. Eligible patients were 12-26-weeks post-radiotherapy for brain cancer. The individually-prescribed weekly exercise was ≥150-minutes of moderate-intensity exercise, including two resistance-training sessions. The intervention was deemed "safe" if exercise-related, serious adverse events (SAE) were experienced by <10% of participants, and feasible if recruitment, retention, and adherence rates were ≥75%, and ≥75% compliance rates were achieved in ≥75% of weeks. Patient-reported and objectively-measured outcomes were assessed at baseline, mid-intervention, end-intervention, and 6-month follow-up, using generalized estimating equations. Twelve participants enrolled (51 ± 19.5 years, 5 females). There were no exercise-related SAEs. The intervention was feasible (recruitment:80%, retention:92%, adherence:83%). Participants completed a median of 172.8 (min:77.5, max:560.8) minutes of physical activity per week. 17% met the compliance outcome threshold for ≥75% of the intervention. Improvements in quality of life (mean change (95% CI): 7.9 units (1.9, 13.8)), functional well-being (4.3 units (1.4, 7.2)), depression (−2.0 units (−3.8, −0.2)), activity (112.8 min (42.1, 183.4)), fitness (56.4 meters (20.4, 92.5)), balance (4.9 s (0.9, 9.0)), and lower-body strength (15.2 kg (9.3, 21.1)) were observed end-intervention. Preliminary evidence support that exercise is safe and beneficial to the quality of life and functional outcomes for people with brain cancer.Registration: ACTRN12617001577303 The BRAin Cancer and Exercise (BRACE) study highlights the need for regular monitoring of disease- and treatment-related side effects which may present as barriers to exercise. Exercise prescription should be modified according to the presence and severity of disease- and treatment-related barriers. Adverse events observed, such as dizziness, highlight the importance of supervised exercise for people with brain cancer. If supervision is not possible, then exercise modes with low risk of harm from falls are recommended (e.g., walking, machine-based resistance training). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COVID‐19 pandemic has forced rapid system‐wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging. Methods: We aimed to describe the COVID‐19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics. Results: Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts. Conclusion: Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Radiation-induced skin reaction (RISR) is one of the most common and distressing side effects of radiotherapy in patients with cancer. It is featured with swelling, redness, itching, pain, breaks in skin, discomfort, and a burning sensation. There is a lack of convincing evidence supporting any single practice in the prevention or management of RISR. Methods/Designs This double-blinded randomised controlled trial aims to investigate the effects of a natural oil-based emulsion containing allantoin (as known as Moogoo Udder Cream®) versus aqueous cream in reducing RISR, improving pain, itching and quality of life in this patient group. One group will receive Moogoo Udder Cream®. Another group will receive aqueous cream. Outcome measures will be collected using patient self-administered questionnaire, interviewer administered questionnaire and clinician assessment at commencement of radiotherapy, weekly during radiotherapy, and four weeks after the completion of radiotherapy. Discussion Despite advances of radiologic advances and supportive care, RISR are still not well managed. There is a lack of efficacious interventions in managing RISR. While anecdotal evidence suggests that Moogoo Udder Cream® may be effective in managing RISR, research is needed to substantiate this claim. This paper presents the design of a double blind randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effects of Moogoo Udder Cream® versus aqueous cream for managing in RISR in patients with cancer. Trial registration ACTRN 12612000568819

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid system-wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging., Methods: We aimed to describe the COVID-19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics., Results: Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts., Conclusion: Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)