Application of intraoperative photodynamic therapy in patients suspected of recurrence post radical surgery: A single center experience

BACKGROUND

Difficult to resect tumors may be treated with a combination of radical surgery and photodynamic therapy to try to reduce recurrence. The aim of this single center study is to present results from a combined application of radical surgery with intraoperative PDT for patients with various cancers suspected of high risk for post-operative local recurrence.

METHODS

Radical surgery combined with intraoperative PDT was performed in each and every patient under study at different time points from June 2020 to July 2021, and the PDT irradiation time ranged from 10, 20, 25 and 30 min. Hematoporphyrin, as a photo synthesizer, was administered intravenously 48 h before surgery and during the operative period respectively, at a 3 mg/kg dose. In addition, the mean and median survival times for each of these patients were also evaluated. Patient's overall disease-Free Survival (DFS) and survival (OS) were immensely evaluated.

RESULTS

12 patients (33.3% female and 66.7 % male) underwent radical surgery and PDT simultaneously. No photosensitivity events were reported in the included patients, except for one case with a moderate to severe erythema. Intraoperative PDT was tolerated in all included patients without serious liver and kidney damages. As from the time these patients underwent radical surgery and PDT, three mortalities were recorded and the remaining 9 patients had some remarkable outcomes with less or no recurrences.

CONCLUSIONS

Intraoperative PDT is a potentially safe therapeutic strategy for various tumor patients who undergo operation. Intraoperative PDT combined with surgery may improve local tumor control but this needs to be tested in a larger patient population.

Publication Bias in Gastrointestinal Oncology Trials Performed over the Past Decade

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based practice, but their development and implementation is resource intensive. We aimed to describe modern RCTs in gastrointestinal (GI) cancer and identify predictors of successful accrual and publication.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for phase III GI cancer RCTs opened between 2010 and 2019 and divided into two cohorts: past and recruiting. Past trials were analyzed for predictors of successful accrual and the subset with ≥3 years follow-up were analyzed for predictors of publication. Univariate and multivariable (MVA) logistic regression were used to identify covariates associated with complete accrual and publication status.

RESULTS

A total of 533 GI RCTs were opened from 2010 to 2019, 244 of which are still recruiting. In the "past" trials cohort (235/533) MVA, Asian continent of enrollment was a predictor for successful accrual, whereas trials with prolonged enrollment (duration longer than median of 960 days) trended to failed accrual. Predictors for publication on MVA included international enrollment and accrual completion. Sponsorship was not associated with accrual or publication. Notably, 33% of past trials remain unpublished, and 60% of trials that were closed early remain unpublished.

CONCLUSION

Accrual rate and the primary continent of enrollment drive both trial completion and publication in GI oncology. Accrual must be streamlined to enhance the impact of RCTs on clinical management. A large portion of trials remain unpublished, underscoring the need to encourage dissemination of all trials to, at a minimum, inform future trial design.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Two-thirds of gastrointestinal (GI) oncology phase III randomized controlled trials successfully accrue; however, one third of these trials are unpublished and more than half of trials that close early are unpublished. The strongest predictors for publication are successful accrual and international collaborations. Initiatives to optimize the trial enrollment process need to be explored to maximize the potential for trials to engender progress in clinical practice. Moreover, this study identified a significant publication bias in the realm of GI oncology, and the field should promote reporting of all trials in order to better inform future trial questions and design.

Access to clinical trials among oncology patients: results of a cross sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are necessary for the advancement of cancer treatment and care, however low rates of participation in such trials limit the generalisability of findings. The objective of this study was to examine the proportion of medical oncology outpatients in Australia who are invited and consent to participate in clinical trials and the factors associated with this.

METHODS

A sample of adult medical oncology patients was recruited from three Australian cancer treatment centres. Consenting patients completed two paper-and-pencil surveys; one at the time of consent and another approximately 1 month later. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to explore factors associated with invitation and participation in a trial.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight percent (n = 146) of the 383 participants reported they had been invited to take part in a clinical trial. Of those invited, 93% reported consenting to participate in the trial, with the majority indicating that they did not regret their decision (89%). Treatment centre and time since diagnosis were significantly associated with being invited to take part in a clinical trial. None of the factors examined were associated with clinical trial consent rates.

CONCLUSIONS

The main barrier to clinical trial participation is not being invited to do so, with the centre the patient attends being a modifiable determinant of whether or not they are invited. Increasing the resources available to treatment centres to ensure all patients are offered participation in trials they are eligible for may help to improve rates of trial participation.

The Perspectives of Haematological Cancer Patients on Tissue Banking

Background

A high level of support for tissue banking has been identified amongst both the general public and patients. However, much debate remains about the regulatory framework of tissue banks.

Objective

This study explored the views of haematological cancer patients regarding tissue banking and how tissue banks should operate.

Methods

Haematological cancer patients from three outpatient clinics in Australia completed a questionnaire examining their preferences for tissue banking as well as items about their sociodemographic characteristics, disease and treatment history.

Results

The majority of participants (95%) reported being willing to allow their leftover tissue to be used for medical research. Three quarters (76%) supported the idea of their medical record being linked to their tissue sample, and 77% preferred a blanket (one-off) consent model for future research use of their tissue sample. Only 57 (27%) participants had been asked to give a tissue sample for research, 98% of whom gave permission.

Conclusion

The majority of haematological cancer patients are willing to donate their leftover tissue to a tissue bank and have their medical records linked to tissue samples and prefer a one-off consent process. These novel data from potential donors inform the debate about how tissue banks might operate.

Funding

Strategic Research Partnership Grant from the Cancer Council NSW to the Newcastle Cancer Control Collaborative (New-3C) and infrastructure funding from the Hunter Medical Research Institute (HMRI). A.W. is supported by an Australian Research Council DECRA fellowship (DE150101262). T.C.M. was supported by a Leukaemia Foundation of Queensland Post-Doctoral Fellowship. A.B. is supported by National Health and Medical Research Council (APP1073317) and Cancer Institute NSW (13/ECF/1–37) Early Career Fellowships.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40487-016-0019-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.