Predicting muscle loss during lung cancer treatment (PREDICT): protocol for a mixed methods prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Low muscle mass and low muscle attenuation (radiodensity), reflecting increased muscle adiposity, are prevalent muscle abnormalities in people with lung cancer receiving curative intent chemoradiation therapy (CRT) or radiation therapy (RT). Currently, there is a limited understanding of the magnitude, determinants and clinical significance of these muscle abnormalities in the lung cancer CRT/RT population. The primary objective of this study is to identify the predictors of muscle abnormalities (low muscle mass and muscle attenuation) and their depletion over time in people with lung cancer receiving CRT/RT. Secondary objectives are to assess the magnitude of change in these parameters and their association with health-related quality of life, treatment completion, toxicities and survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients diagnosed with lung cancer and planned for treatment with CRT/RT are invited to participate in this prospective observational study, with a target of 120 participants. The impact and predictors of muscle abnormalities (assessed via CT at the third lumbar vertebra) prior to and 2 months post CRT/RT on the severity of treatment toxicities, treatment completion and survival will be assessed by examining the following variables: demographic and clinical factors, weight loss, malnutrition, muscle strength, physical performance, energy and protein intake, physical activity and sedentary time, risk of sarcopenia (Strength, Assistance in walking, Rise from a chair, Climb stairs, Falls history (SARC-F) score alone and with calf-circumference) and systemic inflammation. A sample of purposively selected participants with muscle abnormalities will be invited to take part in semistructured interviews to understand their ability to cope with treatment and explore preference for treatment strategies focused on nutrition and exercise. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PREDICT study received ethics approval from the Human Research Ethics Committee at Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (HREC/53147/PMCC-2019) and Deakin University (2019-320). Findings will be disseminated through peer review publications and conference presentations.

Health, the Outdoors and Safety

While the public health benefits accruing from exposure to the outdoors, and especially the natural environment, have gained greater recognition, this has exposed rifts in thinking between those focusing on the pathology of injury and those pursuing a wider health agenda which recognizes the restorative potential of encounters with nature. In retrospect, the classification of injury as a public health issue in the mid-20th century triggered complex societal responses which generated unintended consequences affecting healthful activities. Responses generally aim to reduce or minimize the risk of injury and come in different forms, including formal and informal codes of practice, standards, management systems and regulation. Well-intentioned as these interventions may have been, the new emphasis on harm shifted attention away from what causes health and resulted in increasing control over activities, including those taking place outdoors. This article, which draws on long-term qualitative policy research, describes examples of these on-going tensions in the context of the public enjoyment of the outdoors. In conclusion, the situation presented is considered from a number of theoretical perspectives, and proposals are made for resolving the issues. These include improved communication between sectors and, on the technical side, the introduction of a compensatory decision process which enables policy makers to take account of both the health benefits and risks of exposure to the natural environment.

Safety, Efficacy, and Patterns of Failure After Single-Fraction Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy (SBRT) for Oligometastases.

PURPOSE: Fewer attendances for radiation therapy results in increased efficiency and less foot traffic within a radiation therapy department. We investigated outcomes after single-fraction (SF) stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) in patients with oligometastatic disease. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Between February 2010 and June 2019, patients who received SF SBRT to 1 to 5 sites of oligometastatic disease were included in this retrospective study. The primary objective was to describe patterns of first failure after SBRT. Secondary objectives included overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), high-grade treatment-related toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events grade ≥3), and freedom from systemic therapy (FFST). RESULTS: In total, 371 patients with 494 extracranial oligometastases received SF SBRT ranging from 16 Gy to 28 Gy. The most common primary malignancies were prostate (n = 107), lung (n = 63), kidney (n = 52), gastrointestinal (n = 51), and breast cancers (n = 42). The median follow-up was 3.1 years. The 1-, 3-, and 5-year OS was 93%, 69%, and 55%, respectively; PFS was 48%, 19%, and 14%, respectively; and FFST was 70%, 43%, and 35%, respectively. Twelve patients (3%) developed grade 3 to 4 treatment-related toxicity, with no grade 5 toxicity. As the first site of failure, the cumulative incidence of local failure (irrespective of other failures) at 1, 3 and 5 years was 4%, 8%, and 8%, respectively; locoregional relapse at the primary was 10%, 18%, and 18%, respectively; and distant failure was 45%, 66%, and 70%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: SF SBRT is safe and effective, and a significant proportion of patients remain FFST for several years after therapy. This approach could be considered in resource-constrained or bundled-payment environments. Locoregional failure of the primary site is the second most common pattern of failure, suggesting a role for optimization of primary control during metastasis-directed therapy.

Impact of COVID-19 on cancer service delivery: results from an international survey of oncology clinicians.

OBJECTIVES: To report clinician-perceived changes to cancer service delivery in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: Multidisciplinary Australasian cancer clinician survey in collaboration with the European Society of Medical Oncology. SETTING: Between 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. PARTICIPANTS: Medical oncologists (n=372; 74%), radiation oncologists (n=91; 18%) and surgical oncologists (n=38; 8%). RESULTS: Eighty-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. CONCLUSION: Clinicians 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.