Delphi study to identify consensus on patient selection for hydrogel rectal spacer use during radiation therapy for prostate cancer in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To identify consensus on patient prioritisation for rectal hydrogel spacer use during radiation therapy for the treatment of prostate cancer in the UK.

DESIGN

Delphi study consisting of two rounds of online questionnaires, two virtual advisory board meetings and a final online questionnaire.

SETTING

Radical radiation therapy for localised and locally advanced prostate cancer in the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Six leading clinical oncologists and one urologist from across the UK.

INTERVENTIONS

Rectal hydrogel spacer.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

None reported.

RESULTS

The panel reached consensus on the importance of minimising toxicity for treatments with curative intent and that even low-grade toxicity-related adverse events can significantly impact quality of life. There was agreement that despite meeting rectal dose constraints, too many patients experience rectal toxicity and that rectal hydrogel spacers in eligible patients significantly reduces toxicity-related adverse events. However, as a consequence of funding limitations, patients need to be prioritised for spacer use. A higher benefit of spacers can be expected in patients on anticoagulation and in patients with diabetes or inflammatory bowel disease, but consensus could not be reached regarding patient groups expected to benefit less. While radiation therapy regimen is not a main factor determining prioritisation, higher benefit is expected in ultrahypofractionated regimens.

CONCLUSION

There is a strong and general agreement that all patients with prostate cancer undergoing radical radiation therapy have the potential to benefit from hydrogel spacers. Currently, not all patients who could potentially benefit can access hydrogel spacers, and access is unequal. Implementation of the consensus recommendations would likely help prioritise and equalise access to rectal spacers for patients in the UK.

Examining D-dimer and Empiric Anti-coagulation in COVID-19-Related Thrombosis

Objective

Thrombosis is thought to occur frequently in the setting of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. We aimed to elucidate the relationship between macro/microvascular thrombosis, D-dimer levels, and empiric anticoagulation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

This was an exploratory prospective, single-site, observational study. Adult emergency department patients with COVID-19 requiring hospitalization received a point-of-care lower extremity venous duplex ultrasound. The primary endpoint was thromboembolism and associated D-dimer level. Secondary endpoints included rates of micro and macro thrombotic complications as well as empiric anticoagulant use.

Results

Between January 13^th and April 12^th 2021, 52 patients were enrolled. Median D-dimer at presentation was 650 ng/mL (range 250-10,000 ng/mL) among patients with negative duplex studies. During hospitalization, 18 patients underwent 20 additional studies assessing for venous thromboembolism (VTE). These studies yielded one deep vein thrombosis (DVT) diagnosis. Among patients with negative studies median D-dimer was 1,246 ng/mL (range 329-10,000 ng/mL). Two patients experienced microvascular complications. Seven patients were started on empiric full dose anticoagulation.

Conclusion

While VTE remains a major concern amongst patients with COVID-19, the normal D-dimer cut off of >500 ng/mL likely should not be used to initiate further VTE workup. Additionally, moderately elevated D-dimer did not correlate strongly with microvascular complications and may not be relevant in the decision to initiate empiric anticoagulation.

Attitudes and adherence to changes in nutrition and physical activity following surgery for prostate cancer: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Interventions designed to improve men's diet and physical activity (PA) have been recommended as methods of cancer prevention. However, little is known about specific factors that support men's adherence to these health behaviour changes, which could inform theory-led diet and PA interventions. We aimed to explore these factors in men following prostatectomy for prostate cancer (PCa).

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A qualitative study using semistructured interviews with men, who made changes to their diet and/or PA as part of a factorial randomised controlled trial conducted at a single hospital in South West England. Participants were 17 men aged 66 years, diagnosed with localised PCa and underwent prostatectomy. Interview transcripts underwent thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Men were ambivalent about the relationship of nutrition and PA with PCa risk. They believed their diet and level of PA were reasonable before being randomised to their interventions. Men identified several barriers and facilitators to performing these new behaviours. Barriers included tolerance to dietary changes, PA limitations and external obstacles. Facilitators included partner involvement in diet, habit formation and brisk walking as an individual activity. Men discussed positive effects associated with brisk walking, such as feeling healthier, but not with nutrition interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

The facilitators to behaviour change suggest that adherence to trial interventions can be supported using well-established behaviour change models. Future studies may benefit from theory-based interventions to support adherence to diet and PA behaviour changes in men diagnosed with PCa.

Tamsulosin-Induced Atrial Fibrillation With Rapid Ventricular Response

Tamsulosin, sold under the brand name Flomax, is a commonly prescribed medication for benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). While generally well-tolerated, this medication can induce life-threatening tachyarrhythmias. Early recognition of this adverse effect can lead to prompt discontinuation of the therapy in an effort to reduce arrhythmia recurrence. Herein we describe a case of atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response in a male patient who started on tamsulosin two days prior.

A phase II trial of cemiplimab alone or in combination with standard of care chemotherapy in locally advanced or metastatic penile carcinoma (EPIC Trial)

TPS5094

Background: Penile cancer (PC) is rare but its incidence is increasing, with an increase of 21% over the last decade. The rarity of this cancer means a paucity of large prospective clinical trial data to guide the management of locally advanced/metastatic penile cancer (la/mPC). Cisplatin containing combination chemotherapy regimens are widely regarded as the standard of care (SOC) in this setting. However, with response rates of about 50% there is a need to further improve treatment outcomes. PDL1 is upregulated in 40–60% of PC cases and is correlated with poor prognosis making a case for immunotherapy as a treatment for la/mPC. Currently there are ongoing clinical trials exploring immunotherapy on penile carcinoma, however, none of these trials are looking at the combination of immunotherapy and chemotherapy. The novel immune checkpoint inhibitor cemiplimab has been approved for locally advanced and metastatic cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (mcSCC). In view of this, we sought to evaluate the benefit and safety of cemiplimab alone, or, in combination with SOC chemotherapy in patients with la/mPC. Methods: This is a non-randomised, open label, two arm phase II multi-centre trial of single agent cemiplimab versus cemiplimab + SOC chemotherapy in la/mPC, choice of arm decided by the investigator site based on chemotherapy eligibility. Eligibility includes patients with la/mPC who are candidates for immunotherapy +/- SOC chemotherapy (local UK centre choice of cisplatin/5FU or TPF or TIP regimes). 47 patients will be recruited from 10 UK centres: 29 patients into ARM 1 who will receive 4 cycles of cemiplimab 350mg IV q3 weekly + SOC chemotherapy, followed by single agent cemiplimab x 30 cycles (24 months total). 18 patients into ARM 2 who will receive single agent cemiplimab 350mg IV q3 weekly, up to 34 cycles (24 months total). The primary endpoint is clinical benefit rate (CBR) of cemiplimab: objective response rate (ORR) plus stable disease as assessed radiologically (RECIST 1.1) post cycle 4 in patients with la/mPC. Secondary end-points include safety, tolerability, CBR at 1, 2 and 3 years, ORR, progression-free survival, overall survival and assessment of patient health status and quality of life using the patient reported outcome measures EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30. Each arm will be analysed separately as a Fleming A’Hern study α = 0.05 + power (1-β) = 0.8. Arm 1 assumes 25% meeting the clinical end point is a poor treatment (p0 = 0.25) and 50% is a good treatment (p1 = 0.5). Arm 2 assumes 5% meeting the clinical end point is a poor treatment (p0 = 0.05) and 25% is a good treatment (p1 = 0.25). To date, 4 patients have been recruited from 2 centres with the aim to open all UK centres to recruitment by June 2022. The EPIC trial is NCRN badged. Clinical trial information: 95561634.

Efficacy and Safety of Autologous Dendritic Cell-Based Immunotherapy, Docetaxel, and Prednisone vs Placebo in Patients With Metastatic Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer: The VIABLE Phase 3 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

DCVAC/PCa is an active cellular immunotherapy designed to initiate an immune response against prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of DCVAC/PCa plus chemotherapy followed by DCVAC/PCa maintenance treatment in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

The VIABLE double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomized clinical trial enrolled patients with mCRPC among 177 hospital clinics in the US and Europe between June 2014 and November 2017. Data analyses were performed from December 2019 to July 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible patients were randomized (2:1) to receive DCVAC/PCa (add-on and maintenance) or placebo, both in combination with chemotherapy (docetaxel plus prednisone). The stratification was applied according to geographical region (US or non-US), prior therapy (abiraterone, enzalutamide, or neither), and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (0-1 or 2). DCVAC/PCa or placebo was administered subcutaneously every 3 to 4 weeks (up to 15 doses).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was overall survival (OS), defined as the time from randomization until death due to any cause, in all randomized patients. Survival was compared using 2-sided log-rank test stratified by geographical region, prior therapy with abiraterone and/or enzalutamide, and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status.

RESULTS

A total of 1182 men with mCRPC (median [range] age, 68 [46-89] years) were randomized to receive DCVAC/PCa (n = 787) or placebo (n = 395). Of these, 610 (81.8%) started DCVAC/PCa, and 376 (98.4%) started placebo. There was no difference in OS between the DCVAC/PCa and placebo groups in all randomized patients (median OS, 23.9 months [95% CI, 21.6-25.3] vs 24.3 months [95% CI, 22.6-26.0]; hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.90-1.21; P = .60). No differences in the secondary efficacy end points (radiological progression-free survival, time to prostate-specific antigen progression, or skeletal-related events) were observed. Treatment-emergent adverse events related to DCVAC/PCa or placebo occurred in 69 of 749 (9.2%) and 48 of 379 (12.7%) patients, respectively. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events (DCVAC/PCa [n = 749] vs placebo [n = 379]) were fatigue (271 [36.2%] vs 152 [40.1%]), alopecia (222 [29.6%] vs 130 [34.3%]), and diarrhea (206 [27.5%] vs 117 [30.9%]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this phase 3 randomized clinical trial, DCVAC/PCa combined with docetaxel plus prednisone and continued as maintenance treatment did not extend OS in patients with mCRPC and was well tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02111577.

Boosters reduce in-hospital mortality in patients with COVID-19: An observational cohort analysis

Background

Methods

Findings

Interpretation

Funding

Valsalva Retinopathy Masking as a Retinal Detachment on Point-of-care Ocular Ultrasound: A Case Report

Introduction: Approximately two million people present to the emergency department (ED) with eye-related complaints each year in the United States. Differentiating pathologies that need urgent consultation from those that do not is imperative. For some physicians, ocular ultrasound has eclipsed the dilated fundoscopic exam as the standard posterior segment evaluation in the ED. Case report: A 60-year-old female presented with sudden onset visual disturbance in her right eye. Point-of-care ultrasound showed a hyperechoic band in the posterior segment concerning for a retinal detachment. Ophthalmology was consulted and diagnosed the patient with a condition known as Valsalva retinopathy. The patient was discharged from the ED with expectant management. Conclusion: This case highlights an important differential diagnosis that should be considered when ocular ultrasound demonstrates a hyperechoic band in the posterior segment. While previous literature has demonstrated that emergency physicians are able to accurately identify posterior segment pathology using ultrasound, there is limited information regarding their ability to differentiate between pathologies, some of which may not require urgent consultation. We highlight the important differentials that should be considered when identifying posterior segment pathology on point-of-care ultrasound and their appropriate dispositions.

Applying a Modern Pedagogy to Emergency Residency Ultrasound Education

Background

Modern technology has revolutionized pedagogy in medicine. With the availability of high-quality resources in the palm of our hands, the flipped classroom model has gained widespread support. Additionally, devices such as “clickers” allow for the ability to interact much more directly with lecture participants.

Objective

We aimed to investigate the impact of a modern refresh to our emergency point of care ultrasound (POCUS) curriculum on resident exam performance and satisfaction.

Methods

In 2021, we conducted a single-site pre-post interventional study with Emergency residents as eligible participants. The interventions included two modifications to the POCUS curriculum. First, residents prepared and delivered mini-lectures in lieu of formal didactic sessions. Second, weekly image review was reimplemented with more active participation. Our primary outcome was end-of-rotation exam performance and our secondary outcome was learner satisfaction.

Results

During the study period, 19 residents participated in the curriculum. Exam scores were similar, 90.84% +/- 2.27% and 89.34% +/- 3.43% (p = 0.105) for pre and post-intervention scores respectively. Satisfaction surveys were completed by 12 of the 19 participants. On a scale of 1-5, average satisfaction was fair (3.9 to 4.1) regarding the mini-lecture intervention and high (4.3 to 4.6) for the active weekly image review modification.

Conclusions

The POCUS curriculum refresh was well-received by emergency medicine residents. However, there was no clear competency benefit when compared to the traditional approach. The modified active weekly review was particularly well-received amongst our residents and maybe a strong model for emergency POCUS programs across the country.

A multicenter real-world study reviewing systemic anticancer treatment choices and drop off rates between treatment lines for metastatic renal cell carcinoma in the United Kingdom: In the immunotherapy era

358

Background: The treatment landscape of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) has evolved over the last few years with several systemic anti-cancer therapies (SACT) licensed across different lines of treatment. A previous real world study in the UK had demonstrated a significant attrition rate between each line of therapy suggesting less than half of patients who received first line SACT then received second line therapy and less than a fifth of first line SACT patients reach third line. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of all patients treated between January 2018 and end of June 2021 to see if advancement in treatment options had impacted on the drop-off rates. Data was collected from 5 UK sites. Patients were identified from electronic SACT database. All reimbursed treatment options including the COVID interim treatment guidelines options were included. Patients who received SACT as part of a clinical trial were also included. Patients who remained on the respective lines of treatment were censored. Results: Data for 515 patients (372 male: 143 female) who received first-line SACT for mRCC were included in the analyses. IMDC prognostic groups were 103 favourable, 236 intermediate, 127 poor (49 not available). On progression 69% of patients were able to receive second-line therapy and 34% were able to receive third-line therapy. Of the 515 first-line therapies, 24% of patients received frontline ipilimumab and nivolumab, 10% received TKI and IO combination and 63% received single agent VEGF TKI. Second-line nivolumab or cabozantinib (43% and 40% respectively) were the most commonly prescribed options. Third-line cabozantinib 61% and nivolumab 16% remain the most used options. Across all lines of therapy progressive disease was the primary reason for discontinuation. 5% switched treatment due to toxicity. Conclusions: These results suggest that, with more treatment options available, including combination/ immunotherapy therapies, more patients are able to receive second and third-line therapies. Despite this, nearly one third of patients only receive one line of treatment which highlights the need to deliver the most efficacious treatments first to optimise patient outcomes. Moreover, single agent TKI was the most commonly used first-line SACT despite advances in the management pathway. Data analysing the impact of COVID on treatment selection will be presented.[Table: see text]

Vesicant infusates are not associated with ultrasound-guided peripheral intravenous catheter failure: A secondary analysis of existing data

Background

Intravenous vesicants are commonly infused via peripheral intravenous catheters (PIVC) despite guidelines recommending administration via central route. The impact of these medications on PIVC failure is unclear. We aimed to assess dose-related impact of these caustic medications on ultrasound-guided (US) PIVC survivorship.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial that compared survival of two catheters: a standard long (SL) and an ultra-long (UL) US PIVC. This study involved reviewing and recording all vesicants infusions through the PIVCs. Type and number of vesicants doses were extracted and characterized as one, two or multiple. The most commonly used vesicants were individually categorized for further analysis. The primary outcome was PIVC failure accounting for use and timing of vesicant infusates.

Results

Between October 2018 and March 2019, 257 subjects were randomized with 131 in the UL group and 126 in the SL group. Vesicants were infused in 96 (37.4%) out of 257 study participants. In multivariable time-dependent extended Cox regression analysis, there was no significant increased risk of failure due to vesicant use [adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 1.71 (95% CI 0.76–1.81) p = 0.477]. The number of vesicant doses was not significantly associated with the increased risk of PIVC failure [(1 vs 0) aHR 1.20 (95% CI 0.71–2.02) p = 0.500], [(2 vs 0) aHR 1.51 (95% CI 0.67–3.43) p = 0.320] and [(≥ 3 vs 0) aHR 0.98 (95% CI 0.50–1.92) p = 0.952].

Conclusion

Vesicant usage did not significantly increase the risk of PIVC failure even when multiple doses were needed in this investigation. Ultrasound-guided PIVCs represent a pragmatic option when vesicant therapy is anticipated. Nevertheless, it is notable that overall PIVC failure rates remain high and other safety events related to vesicant use should be considered when clinicians make vascular access decisions for patients.

VinCaP: a phase II trial of vinflunine in locally advanced and metastatic squamous carcinoma of the penis

BACKGROUND

We investigated the first-line activity of vinflunine in patients with penis cancer. Cisplatin-based combinations are commonly used, but survival is not prolonged; many patients are unfit for such treatment or experience toxicity that outweighs clinical benefit.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with inoperable squamous carcinoma of the penis were recruited to a single-arm, Fleming-A'Hern exact phase II trial. Treatment comprised 4 cycles of vinflunine 320 mg/m2, given every 21 days. Primary endpoint was clinical benefit rate (CBR: objective responses plus stable disease) assessed after 4 cycles. Seven or more objective responses or disease stabilisations observed in 22 evaluable participants would exclude a CBR of <15%, with a true CBR of >40% being probable.

RESULTS

Twenty-two participants were evaluable. Ten objective responses or disease stabilisations were confirmed. CBR was 45.5%, meeting the primary endpoint; partial response rate was 27.3%. Seven patients received >4 cycles of vinflunine. Dose reduction or treatment delay was required for 20% of cycles. In all, 68% of patients experienced at least one grade 3 adverse event. Two deaths on treatment were not caused by disease progression.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-specified clinical activity threshold was exceeded. Toxicity was in keeping with experience in other tumours. Vinflunine merits further study in this disease.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02057913.

Inadvertent Arterial Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter Insertion With Corresponding Electrocardiographic Tracings: A Case Report

Electrocardiographic (ECG) tip confirmation is a validated technique to place the distal tip of a peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC) in the distal superior vena cava at or near the cavoatrial junction during point-of-care insertions. This case report discusses an inadvertent arterial PICC placement despite navigation technology demonstrating similar confirmatory ECG changes seen in standard venous insertions. The findings demonstrate that ECG navigation technology should not be used to rule out arterial PICC placement.

Defining difficult intravenous access (DIVA): A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The term "difficult intravenous access" (DIVA) is commonly used but not clearly defined. Repeated attempts at peripheral intravenous catheter (PIVC) insertion can be a traumatic experience for patients, leading to sub-optimal clinical and economic outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) to collate literature definitions of DIVA, with the aim of arriving at an evidence-driven definition.

METHODS

The SLR was designed to identify clinical, cost, and quality of life publications in patients requiring the insertion of a PIVC in any setting, including studies on US-guidance and/or guidewire, and studies with no specific intervention. The search was restricted to English language studies published between 1st January 2010 and 30th July 2020, and the Ovid platform was used to search several electronic databases, in addition to hand searching of clinical trial registries.

RESULTS

About 121 studies were included in the SLR, of which 64 reported on the objectives relevant to this manuscript. Prevalence estimates varied widely from 6% to 87.7% across 19 publications, reflecting differences in definitions used. Of 43 publications which provided a definition of DIVA, six key themes emerged. Of these, themes 1-3 (failed attempts at PIV access using traditional technique; based on physical examination findings for example no visible or palpable veins; and personal history of DIVA) were covered by all but one publication. Following a failed insertion attempt, the most common number of subsequent attempts was 3, and it was frequently reported that a more experienced clinician would attempt to gain access after multiple failed attempts.

CONCLUSIONS

Considering the themes identified, an evidence-driven definition of DIVA is proposed: "when a clinician has two or more failed attempts at PIV access using traditional techniques, physical examination findings are suggestive of DIVA (e.g. no visible or palpable veins) or the patient has a stated or documented history of DIVA."

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Assessment by Emergency Physician-Performed Bedside Echocardiography: A Prospective Comparative Evaluation of Multiple Modalities

BACKGROUND

Although there is some support for visual estimation (VE) as an accurate method to estimate left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), it is also scrutinized for its subjectivity. Therefore, more objective assessments, such as fractional shortening (FS) or e-point septal separation (EPSS), may be useful in estimating LVEF among patients in the emergency department (ED).

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to compare the real-world accuracy of VE, FS, and EPSS using a sample of point-of-care cardiac ultrasound transthoracic echocardiography (POC-TTE) images acquired by emergency physicians (EPs) with the gold standard of Simpson's method of discs, as measured by comprehensive cardiology-performed echocardiography.

METHODS

We conducted a single-site prospective observational study comparing VE, FS, and EPSS to assess LVEF. Adult patients in the ED receiving both POC-TTE and comprehensive cardiology TTE were included. EPs acquired POC-TTE images and videos that were then interpreted by 2 blinded EPs who were fellowship-trained in emergency ultrasound. EPs estimated LVEF using VE, FS, and EPSS. The primary outcome was accuracy.

RESULTS

Between April and May 2018, 125 patients were enrolled and 113 were included in the final analysis. EP1 and EP2 had a κ of 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.00) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.91-1.00), respectively, for VE compared with gold standard, a κ of 0.40 (95% CI 0.23-0.57) and 0.38 (95% CI 0.18-0.57), respectively, for EPSS compared with gold standard, and a κ of 0.70 (95% CI 0.54-0.85) and 0.66 (95% CI 0.50-0.81), respectively, for FS compared with gold standard. Sensitivity of severe dysfunction was moderate to high in VE (EP1 85% and EP2 93%), poor to moderate in FS (EP1 73% and EP2 50%), and poor in EPSS (EP1 11% and EP2 18%).

CONCLUSIONS

Using a real-world sample of POC-TTE images, the quantitative measurements of EPSS and FS demonstrated poor accuracy in estimating LVEF, even among experienced sonographers. These methods should not be used to determine cardiac function in the ED. VE by experienced physicians demonstrated reliable accuracy for estimating LVEF compared with the gold standard of cardiology-performed TTE.

Comparison of 2 Midline Catheter Devices With Differing Antithrombogenic Mechanisms for Catheter-Related Thrombosis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Data regarding upper extremity midline catheter (MC)-related thrombosis (CRT) are sparse, with some evidence indicating that MCs have a high rate of CRT.

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2 MCs with differing antithrombogenic mechanisms for this outcome.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this parallel, 2-arm randomized clinical trial, 496 adult patients hospitalized at a tertiary care suburban academic medical center who received an MC were assessed for eligibility between January 1, 2019, and October 31, 2020, and 212 were randomized.

INTERVENTIONS

Inpatients were randomized to receive a 4F antithrombotic MC (MC-AT) or a 4.5F antithrombotic and antimicrobial MC (MC-AT-AM).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was symptomatic midline CRT inclusive of deep vein thrombosis or superficial venous thrombophlebitis within 30 days after insertion. Secondary outcomes included catheter-associated bloodstream infection and catheter failure.

RESULTS

A total of 191 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.2 [16.7] years; 114 [59.7%] female) were included in the final analysis: 94 patients in the MC-AT group and 97 in the MC-AT-AM group. Symptomatic midline CRT occurred in 7 patients (7.5%) in the MC-AT group and 11 (11.3%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .46). Deep vein thrombosis occurred in 5 patients (5.3%) in the MC-AT group and 5 patients (5.2%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P > .99). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 1 patient in the MC-AT group. No catheter-associated bloodstream infection occurred in either group. Premature catheter failure occurred in 22 patients (23.4%) in the MC-AT group and 20 (20.6%) in the MC-AT-AM group (P = .64). In Cox proportional hazards regression analysis, no statistically significant difference was found between groups for the risk of catheter failure (hazard ratio, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.67-2.43; P = .46).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

No difference was found in thrombosis in MCs with 2 distinct antithrombogenic mechanisms; however, the risk of CRT in both groups was high. Practitioners should strongly consider the safety risks associated with MCs when determining the appropriate vascular access device.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03725293.

Timing of corticosteroids impacts mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients

The optimal timing of initiating corticosteroid treatment in hospitalized patients is unknown. We aimed to assess the relationship between timing of initial corticosteroid treatment and in-hospital mortality in COVID-19 patients. In this observational study through medical record analysis, we quantified the mortality benefit of corticosteroids in two equally matched groups of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. We subsequently evaluated the timing of initiating corticosteroids and its effect on mortality in all patients receiving corticosteroids. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory variables were collected and employed for multivariable regression analyses. 1461 hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 were analyzed. Of these, 760 were also matched into two equal groups based on having received corticosteroid therapy. Patients receiving corticosteroids had a lower risk of death than those who did not (HR 0.67, 95% CI 0.67-0.90; p = 0.01). Timing of corticosteroids was assessed for all 615 patients receiving corticosteroids during admission. Patients receiving first dose of corticosteroids > 72 h into hospitalization had a lower risk of death compared to patients with first dose at earlier time intervals (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.38-0.82; p = 0.003). There was a mortality benefit in patients with > 7 days of symptom onset to initiation of corticosteroids (HR 0.56, 95% CI 0.33-0.95; p = 0.03). In patients receiving oxygen therapy, corticosteroids reduced risk of death in mechanically ventilated patients (HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.24-0.60; p < 0.001) but not in patients on high-flow or other oxygen therapy (HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.20-1.07; p = 0.07) and (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.35-2.00; p = 0.69), respectively. Timing of corticosteroids initiation was related to in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients. Time from symptom onset > 7 days should trigger initiation of corticosteroids. In the absence of invasive mechanical ventilation, corticosteroids should be initiated if the patient remains hospitalized at 72 h. Hypoxia requiring supplemental oxygen therapy should not be a trigger for initiation of corticosteroids unless the timing is appropriate.

Rectal spacers in patients with prostate cancer undergoing radiotherapy: A survey of UK uro-oncologists

AIM

To understand the awareness and use of rectal spacers for prostate cancer patients undergoing radical radiotherapy in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

An expert-devised online questionnaire was completed by members of the British Uro-oncology Group (BUG).

RESULTS

Sixty-three specialists completed the survey (50% of BUG members at that point in time). Only 37% had used rectal spacers, mostly for private patients or those with pre-existing bowel conditions. However, many (68%) would like to use these devices in future. More than 70% of the uro-oncologists felt that bowel toxicity was underreported, but 60% believed that the use of radiotherapy without bowel toxicity was achievable with the use of rectal spacers.

CONCLUSIONS

The current use of rectal spacers by UK uro-oncologists for patients with localised or locally advanced prostate cancer receiving radiotherapy is low and largely restricted by resourcing issues.

Short Androgen Suppression and Radiation Dose Escalation in Prostate Cancer: 12-Year Results of EORTC Trial 22991 in Patients With Localized Intermediate-Risk Disease

PURPOSE

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) trial 22991 (NCT00021450) showed that 6 months of concomitant and adjuvant androgen suppression (AS) improves event- (EFS, Phoenix) and clinical disease-free survival (DFS) of intermediate- and high-risk localized prostatic carcinoma, treated by external-beam radiotherapy (EBRT) at 70-78 Gy. We report the long-term results in intermediate-risk patients treated with 74 or 78 Gy EBRT, as per current guidelines.

PATIENT AND METHODS

Of 819 patients randomly assigned between EBRT or EBRT plus AS started on day 1 of EBRT, 481 entered with intermediate risk (International Union Against Cancer TNM 1997 cT1b-c or T2a with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) ≥ 10 ng/mL or Gleason ≤ 7 and PSA ≤ 20 ng/mL, N0M0) and had EBRT planned at 74 (342 patients, 71.1%) or 78 Gy (139 patients, 28.9%). We report the trial primary end point EFS, DFS, distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS), and overall survival (OS) by intention-to-treat stratified by EBRT dose at two-sided α = 5%.

RESULTS

At a median follow-up of 12.2 years, 92 of 245 patients and 132 of 236 had EFS events in the EBRT plus AS and EBRT arm, respectively, mostly PSA relapse (48.7%) or death (45.1%). EBRT plus AS improved EFS and DFS (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.53; CI, 0.41 to 0.70; P < .001 and HR = 0.67; CI, 0.49 to 0.90; P = .008). At 10 years, DMFS was 79.3% (CI, 73.4 to 84.0) with EBRT plus AS and 72.7% (CI, 66.2 to 78.2) with EBRT (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.02; P = .065). With 140 deaths (EBRT plus AS: 64; EBRT: 76), 10-year OS was 80.0% (CI, 74.1 to 84.7) with EBRT plus AS and 74.3% (CI, 67.8 to 79.7) with EBRT, but not statistically significantly different (HR = 0.74; CI, 0.53 to 1.04; P = .082).

CONCLUSION

Six months of concomitant and adjuvant AS statistically significantly improves EFS and DFS in intermediate-risk prostatic carcinoma, treated by irradiation at 74 or 78 Gy. The effects on OS and DMFS did not reach statistical significance.

Perioperative high dose rate brachytherapy in head and neck cancers: case report and review of clinical application

Perioperative high dose rate brachytherapy is a radiotherapy treatment technique which involves intraoperative insertions of brachytherapy catheters into the tumor bed during the surgical resection followed by treatment in the post-operative period. We report here two cases to highlight its use in the primary treatment and reirradiation of head and neck cancers.