Patient and health practitioner views and experiences of a cancer trial before and during COVID-19: qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding patient and health practitioner perspectives on clinical trials can inform opportunities to enhance trial conduct and design, and therefore patient experience. Patients with haematological cancers have faced additional risk and uncertainty during the pandemic but it is unclear how they and practitioners have experienced cancer trials during this period. In the context of a haemato-oncology trial (PETReA), we compared patient and practitioner views and experiences of PETReA before and during COVID-19. METHODS: Qualitative study embedded within PETReA. Semi-structured interviews (N=41) with patients and practitioners from 16 NHS sites before (n=17) and during the first wave of COVID-19 (n=24). Analysis drew on the framework approach. RESULTS: Practitioners acknowledged the need for the trial to continue during the pandemic but their treatment preferences altered, becoming more pronounced for patients who had a favourable response to induction treatment, while staying unchanged for patients with a less favourable response. Practitioners commented that COVID-19 meant the evidence base for the trial arms was lacking or mixed, but that it likely increased the risks of maintenance treatment for patients with a favourable response to induction treatment. While only one participant interviewed withdrew from PETReA during the pandemic, others said they would consider withdrawing if information that they were at increased risk of severe illness from COVID-19 became available. During COVID-19, patients described less frequent contact with the trial team, which left some feeling less clear about their trial pathway. However, several described having in-depth, collaborative discussions with practitioners about the risks and benefits of randomisation in the context of COVID-19. Patients valued these discussions and were reassured by the emphasis practitioners placed on patients being free to withdraw if circumstances changed, and this helped patients feel comfortable about continuing in PETReA. CONCLUSIONS: The findings point to ways trial communication can support patients to feel comfortable about continuing in a trial during uncertain times, including adopting a more in-depth, collaborative exploration of the risks and benefits of trial arms with patients and emphasising voluntariness. The results are relevant to trialists recruiting patients who are clinically extremely vulnerable or are at increased risk of poor COVID-19 outcomes despite being vaccinated.

COVID-19 outcomes in haematopoietic cell transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Up-to-date information on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outcomes and risk factors in haematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) recipients is required to inform on decisions about cancer treatment and COVID-19 mitigation strategies. We performed a meta-analysis to address this knowledge gap. All studies with at least five patients who reported COVID-19-related deaths in HCT recipients were included. The primary outcome was COVID-19-related death. Secondary outcomes were COVID-19-related mechanical ventilation (MV) and intensive care unit (ITU) admission. The cumulative COVID-19-related death rate among HCT recipients was 21% (95% confidence interval [CI] 18%-24%), while MV and ITU admission rates were 14% (95% CI 11%-17%) and 18% (95% CI 14%-22%), respectively. Subgroup analysis showed higher death rates in patients who developed COVID-19 within 12 months of HCT (risk ratio [RR] 1.82, 95% CI 1.09-3.03), within 6 months of receiving immunosuppressant drugs (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.38-3.20) or in the context of active graft-versus-host disease (RR 2.38, 95% CI 1.10-5.16). Our findings support the idea that HCT should remain an integral part of cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic but also highlight the need to prioritise preventative measures in those patients who are at increased risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes.

Is it time for PET-guided therapy in follicular lymphoma?

18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET-CT) is now established as the gold-standard imaging modality for both staging and response assessment in follicular lymphoma (FL). In this Perspective, we propose where PET can, and cannot, guide clinicians in their therapeutic approach. PET at diagnosis and pretreatment is important for staging, with greater sensitivity compared with standard CT, and consequent improved outcomes in truly limited-stage FL. Small data sets suggesting that a high baseline standardized uptake value (SUVmax) identifies de novo histologic transformation (HT) have not been corroborated by data from GALLIUM, the largest prospective study to examine modern therapies for FL. Nonetheless, the role of baseline quantitative PET measures requires further clarification. The median survival of patients with newly diagnosed FL is now potentially >20 years. Treatment of symptomatic FL aims to achieve remission and optimize quality of life for as long as possible, with many patients achieving a "functional cure" at the cost of unwanted treatment effects. Several studies have identified end-of-induction (EOI) PET after initial chemoimmunotherapy in patients with a high tumor burden as strongly predictive of both progression-free and overall survival, and EOI PET is being evaluated as a platform for response-adapted treatment. Unmet needs remain: improving the inferior survival for patients remaining PET positive and quantifying the progression-free survival and time to next treatment advantage, and additional toxicity of anti-CD20 maintenance in patients who achieve complete metabolic remission. In the absence of an overall survival advantage for frontline antibody maintenance, the question of using PET to guide the therapeutic approach is more important than ever in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.