As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible.Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce.

Background Adjuvant trastuzumab significantly improves outcomes for patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer. The standard treatment duration is 12 months but shorter treatment could provide similar efficacy while reducing toxicities and cost. We aimed to investigate whether 6-month adjuvant trastuzumab treatment is noninferior to the standard 12-month treatment regarding disease-free survival. Methods This study is an open-label, randomised phase 3 non-inferiority trial. Patients were recruited from 152 centres in the UK. We randomly assigned patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer, aged 18 years or older, and with a clear indication for chemotherapy, by a computerised minimisation process (1:1), to receive either 6-month or 12-month trastuzumab delivered every 3 weeks intravenously (loading dose of 8 mg/kg followed by maintenance doses of 6 mg/kg) or subcutaneously (600 mg), given in combination with chemotherapy (concurrently or sequentially). The primary endpoint was disease-free survival, analysed by intention to treat, with a non-inferiority margin of 3% for 4-year disease-free survival. Safety was analysed in all patients who received trastuzumab. This trial is registered with EudraCT (number 2006-007018-39), ISRCTN (number 52968807), and ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT00712140).

NCT01401166.

Eight sessions of weekly group acupuncture compared with group oral care education provide significantly better relief of symptoms in patients suffering from chronic radiation-induced xerostomia.

No abstract

Aim: Firstly, to quantify active healthcare professional (HCP) time and costs associated with subcutaneous (SC) administration of trastuzumab (Herceptin ® ) compared with the standard intravenous infusion (IV) in the treatment of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer within the adjuvant PrefHer trial setting; secondly, to measure patient time in the care unit and patient infusion chair time for both routes of administration. Methods: A UK multi-centre prospective, observational Time and Motion study was conducted alongside the PrefHer trial (ClinicalTrials.gov id: NCT01401166). Trained observers measured the duration of each SC and IV related task that HCPs undertook and recorded patient time in the chemotherapy unit and infusion chair. The type and quantity of medical consumables used with each route of administration were also collected. Twenty-four patient episodes were recorded (12 SC, 12 IV). Mean total administration time was calculated as the mean sum of task times, both for IV and SC formulations. The mean cost of each route of administration was calculated as the mean cost of HCP time plus the mean cost of consumables used. HCP time was costed using Personal Social Services Research Unit. Consumables were costed using hospital pharmacy data and online sources. Results: Mean active HCP time for IV administration was 92.6 minutes compared with 24.6 minutes for SC administration. The mean cost for IV preparation and administration was £144.96 (£132.05 of HCP time and £12.92 of consumables) versus £33.15 (£31.99 of HCP time and £1.17 of consumables) for SC administration. Mean time spent in the care unit and in the infusion chair was 94.5 minutes and 75 minutes respectively for IV, and 30.3 minutes and 19.8 minutes for SC. SC administration of trastuzumab could translate to a time saving of 68 minutes (versus IV) with a total cost saving of £111.81 per patient episode. This equates to a potential saving of £2012.58 over a full course of adjuvant treatment (18 cycles). Conclusion: Substituting IV infusion with SC administration of trastuzumab may lead to a substantial reduction in active HCP time, patient chair and unit time, consumable use and overall costs. The reduced patient chair and unit time could provide increased capacity within existing resources.

Oncologists should recognise the need to move beyond the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) score. ECOG PS is a longstanding and ubiquitous feature of oncology. It was evolved 40 years ago as an adaption of the 70-year-old Karnofsky performance score. It is short, easily understood and part of the global language of oncology. The wide prevalence of the ECOG PS attests to its proven utility and worth to help triage patient treatment. The ECOG PS is problematic. It is a unidimensional functional score. It is mostly physician assessed, subjective and therefore open to bias. It fails to account for multimorbidity, frailty or cognition. Too often the PS is recorded only once in wilful ignorance of a patient's changing physical state. As modern oncology offers an ever-widening array of therapies that are ‘personalised’ to tumour genotype, modern oncologists must strive to better define patient phenotype. Using a wider range of scoring and assessment tools, oncologists can identify deficits that may be reversed or steps taken to mitigate detrimental effects of treatment. These tools can function well to identify those patients who would benefit from comprehensive assessment. This overview identifies the strengths of ECOG PS but highlights the weaknesses and where these are supported by other measures. A strong recommendation is made here to move to routine use of the Clinical Frailty Score to start to triage patients and most appropriately design treatments and rehabilitation interventions.

No abstract