No abstract

Purpose To summarise what is currently known about the psychosocial morbidity, experiences, and needs of people with cancer and their informal caregivers, who live in rural or regional areas of developed countries. Methods Eligible studies dating from August 2010 until May 2021 were identified through several online databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, and RURAL (Rural and Remote Health Database). Results were reported according to the PRISMA guidelines and the protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020171764). Results Sixty-five studies were included in this review, including 20 qualitative studies, 41 quantitative studies, and 4 mixed methods studies. Qualitative research demonstrated that many unique psychosocial needs of rural people remain unmet, particularly relating to finances, travel, and accessing care. However, most (9/19) quantitative studies that compared rural and urban groups reported no significant differences in psychosocial needs, morbidity, or quality of life (QOL). Five quantitative studies reported poorer psychosocial outcomes (social and emotional functioning) in urban cancer survivors, while three highlighted poorer outcomes (physical functioning, role functioning, and self-reported mental health outcomes) in the rural group. Conclusion Recent research shows that rural people affected by cancer have unique unmet psychosocial needs relating to rurality. However, there was little evidence that rural cancer survivors report greater unmet needs than their urban counterparts. This contrasts to the findings from a 2011 systematic review that found rural survivors consistently reported worse psychosocial outcomes. More population-based research is needed to establish whether uniquely rural unmet needs are due to general or cancer-specific factors.

Important inroads have been made in the understanding and treatment of metastatic prostate cancer in recent years. However, the need for agents targeting novel pathways remains ever present. One such area with promise is through apoptosis or programmed cell death. Many perturbations within the apoptotic process have been associated with treatment resistance and progression in castration-resistant prostate cancer; thus, therapeutic potential exists with agents that can restore an effective apoptotic response to cellular stressors. This article focuses on agents in clinical development targeting apoptosis through the intrinsic and extrinsic pathways. We review the current status of agents that intervene at the Bcl2 checkpoints, humanized antibodies to death receptors, agents that target the inhibitors of apoptosis proteins, mimetics of small mitochondria-derived activator of caspases, and antisense therapies targeting cytoprotective chaperones. Although single-agent activity has been demonstrated with some of these agents, the clinical development path forward will see them coupled with standard hormonal therapy and chemotherapy. OGX-011 (custirsen), which inhibits expression of the cytoprotective chaperone protein clusterin, is the most mature of these agents and is being tested in combination with chemotherapy in phase III clinical trials for castration-resistant prostate cancer, and results are eagerly awaited.

LBA5004 Background: The first planned interim analysis of ENZAMET, with 243 deaths after a median follow-up of 34 months, revealed a clinically meaningful overall survival benefit in mHSPC with the addition of enzalutamide to standard of care (hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.86, p=0.002, Davis et al, NEJM 2019). We now present updated overall survival (OS) findings from the prespecified analysis triggered to occur after 470 deaths. Methods: We randomly assigned participants (pts) with mHSPC to treatment with testosterone suppression (TS) plus either a conventional non-steroidal anti-androgen (NSAA) or enzalutamide. Stratification factors included age, volume of disease (high vs low according to the CHAARTED definition), and planned use of concurrent docetaxel assigned by the treating physician (docetaxel yes vs no). Results: We randomized 1125 pts with a median age of 69 years, including 503 in the docetaxel stratum, and 602 with high volume metastatic disease. OS results in the table below are based on 476 deaths, a median follow-up of 68 months, and a cut-off date of 19JAN2022. The hazard rate for death was 30% lower among all those assigned enzalutamide versus control (p<0.0001). Outcomes by volume status are shown (Table) as well as the subgroups of interest with M1 high or low volume disease at diagnosis selected for concurrent docetaxel. Conclusions: Enzalutamide added to TS, compared with an active comparator of NSAA, provided clinically meaningful improvements in OS for the combined overall cohort, which persisted with an additional 3 years of follow-up. The benefits were more pronounced in pts with low volume disease, and were also seen in the subgroup with M1 high volume mHSPC despite the relatively high survival with TS+docetaxel+NSAA. ENZAMET was led by ANZUP Cancer Trials Group and the University of Sydney NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, with funding support from Astellas. Clinical trial information: NCT02446405. [Table: see text]

ObjectivesTo report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19.DesignMultidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology.SettingBetween May and June 2020 clinicians from 70 countries were surveyed; majority from Europe (n=196; 39%) with 1846 COVID-19 cases per million people, Australia (AUS)/New Zealand (NZ) (n=188; 38%) with 267/236 per million and Asia (n=75; 15%) with 121 per million at time of survey distribution.ParticipantsMedical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%).ResultsEighty-nine per cent of clinicians reported altering clinical practices; more commonly among those with versus without patients diagnosed with COVID-19 (n=142; 93% vs n=225; 86%, p=0.03) but regardless of community transmission levels (p=0.26). More European clinicians (n=111; 66.1%) had treated patients diagnosed with COVID-19 compared with Asia (n=20; 27.8%) and AUS/NZ (n=8; 4.8%), p<0.001. Many clinicians (n=307; 71.4%) reported concerns that reduced access to standard treatments during the pandemic would negatively impact patient survival. The reported proportion of consultations using telehealth increased by 7.7-fold, with 25.1% (n=108) of clinicians concerned that patient survival would be worse due to this increase. Clinicians reviewed a median of 10 fewer outpatients/week (including non-face to face) compared with prior to the pandemic, translating to 5010 fewer specialist oncology visits per week among the surveyed group. Mental health was negatively impacted for 52.6% (n=190) of clinicians.ConclusionClinicians reported widespread changes to oncology services, in regions of both high and low COVID-19 case numbers. Clinician concerns of potential negative impacts on patient outcomes warrant objective assessment, with system and policy implications for healthcare delivery at large.