A combined analysis of two prospective randomised studies exploring the impact of extended post-radiation temozolomide on survival outcomes in newly diagnosed glioblastoma

PURPOSE

The optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma remains unclear, with no published phase III randomised trials. Standard-of-care stipulates 6 months. However, in routine care, it is often extended to 12 months, despite lacking robust supporting data.

METHODS

GEINO14-01 (Spain) and EX-TEM (Australia) studies enrolled glioblastoma patients without progression at the end of 6 months post-radiation temozolomide. Participants were randomised 1:1 to six additional months of temozolomide or observation. Primary endpoint was 6-month progression free survival from date of randomisation (6mPFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and toxicity. 204 patients were required to detect an improvement in 6mPFS from 50 to 60% (80% power). Neither study recruited sufficient patients. We performed a combined analysis of individual patient data.

RESULTS

205 patients were recruited: 159 in GEINO14-01 (2014-2018) and 46 in EX-TEM (2019-2022). Median follow-up was 20.0 and 14.5 months. Baseline characteristics were balanced. There was no significant improvement in 6mPFS (57.2% vs 64.0%, OR0.75, p = 0.4), nor across any subgroups, including MGMT methylated; PFS (HR0.92, p = 0.59, median 7.8 vs 9.7 months); or OS (HR1.03, p = 0.87, median 20.1 vs 19.4 months). During treatment extension, 64% experienced any grade adverse event, mainly fatigue and gastrointestinal (both 54%). Only a minority required treatment changes: 4.5% dose delay, 7.5% dose reduction, 1.5% temozolomide discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

For glioblastoma patients, extending post-radiation temozolomide from 6 to 12 months is well tolerated but does not improve 6mPFS. We could not identify any subset that benefitted from extended treatment. Six months should remain standard-of-care.

Development and Validation of txSim: A Model of Advanced Lung Cancer Treatment in Australia

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Since 2016, new therapies have transformed the standard of care for lung cancer, creating a need for up-to-date evidence for health economic modelling. We developed a discrete event simulation of advanced lung cancer treatment to provide estimates of survival outcomes and healthcare costs in the Australian setting that can be updated as new therapies are introduced.

METHODS

Treatment for advanced lung cancer was modelled under a clinician-specified treatment algorithm for Australia in 2022. Prevalence of lung cancer subpopulations was extracted from cBioPortal and the Sax Institute's 45 and Up Study, a large prospective cohort linked to cancer registrations. All costs were from the health system perspective for the year 2020. Pharmaceutical and molecular diagnostic costs were obtained from public reimbursement fees, while other healthcare costs were obtained from health system costs in the 45 and Up Study. Treatment efficacy was obtained from clinical trials and observational study data. Costs and survival were modelled over a 10-year horizon. Uncertainty intervals were generated with probabilistic sensitivity analyses. Overall survival predictions were validated against real-world studies.

RESULTS

Under the 2022 treatment algorithm, estimated mean survival and costs for advanced lung cancer 10 years post-diagnosis were 16.4 months (95% uncertainty interval [UI]: 14.7-18.1) and AU$116,069 (95% UI: $107,378-$124,933). Survival and costs were higher assuming optimal treatment utilisation rates (20.5 months, 95% UI: 19.1-22.5; $154,299, 95% UI: $146,499-$161,591). The model performed well in validation, with good agreement between predicted and observed survival in real-world studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Survival improvements for advanced lung cancer have been accompanied by growing treatment costs. The estimates reported here can be used for budget planning and economic evaluations of interventions across the spectrum of cancer control.

Management Paradigm of Central Nervous System Metastases in NSCLC: An Australian Perspective

Life-prolonging central nervous system active systemic therapies for metastatic NSCLC have increased the complexity of managing brain metastases (BMs). Australian medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and neurosurgeons discussed the evidence guiding the diverse clinical approaches to the management of BM in NSCLC. The Australian context is broadly applicable to other jurisdictions; therefore, we have documented these discussions as principles with broader applications. Patient management was stratified according to clinical and radiologic factors under two broad classifications of newly diagnosed BMs: symptomatic and asymptomatic. Other important considerations include the number and location of metastases, tumor histotypes, molecular subtype, and treatment purpose. Careful consideration of the pace and burden of symptoms, risk of worsening neurologic function at a short interval, and extracranial disease burden should determine whether central nervous system active systemic therapies are used alone or in combination with local therapies (surgery with or without radiation therapy). Most clinical trial evidence currently focuses on historical treatment options or a single treatment modality rather than the optimal sequencing of multiple modern therapies; therefore, an individualized approach is key in a rapidly changing therapeutic landscape.

Acetazolamide versus placebo for cerebral oedema requiring dexamethasone in recurrent and/or progressive high-grade glioma: phase II randomised placebo-controlled double-blind study

OBJECTIVES

Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP when used in other clinical non-cancer settings. The aim of the study was to explore whether the addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent HGG.

METHODS

Participants had recurrent HGG with any of dexamethasone recommencement, dose increase or dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dosing, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stable Karnofsky Performance Status Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility.

RESULTS

Thirty participants (15 per group) were enrolled (mean age 58 years) from seven Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2 mg. Mean duration on study treatment was 38 days (placebo group) and 31 days (acetazolamide group) with nine participants (30%) completing all study treatments (six placebo, three acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6; one placebo, five acetazolamide) and disease progression (n=6 (three per arm)). Four participants (13%) (two per arm) were stable responders. Ten participants experienced a total of 13 serious adverse events (acetazolamide arm: five participants (33%), six events, two related).

CONCLUSIONS

The study closed early due to poor accrual and increasing availability of bevacizumab. The addition of acetazolamide did not facilitate dexamethasone reduction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12615001072505.

Hope in the era of precision oncology: a qualitative study of informal caregivers' experiences

OBJECTIVES

To explore informal caregivers' perspectives on precision medicine in cancer care.

DESIGN

Semi-structured interviews with the informal caregivers of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies. Interview transcripts were analysed thematically using a framework approach.

SETTING

Recruitment was facilitated by two hospitals and five Australian cancer community groups.

PARTICIPANTS

Informal caregivers (n=28; 16 men, 12 women; aged 18-80) of people living with cancer and receiving targeted/immunotherapies.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis identified three findings, centred largely on the pervasive theme of hope in relation to precision therapies including: (1) precision as a key component of caregivers' hope; (2) hope as a collective practice between patients, caregivers, clinicians and others, which entailed work and obligation for caregivers; and (3) hope as linked to expectations of further scientific progress, even if there may be no personal, immediate benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Innovation and change in precision oncology are rapidly reconfiguring the parameters of hope for patients and caregivers, creating new and difficult relational moments and experiences in everyday life and in clinical encounters. In the context of a shifting therapeutic landscape, caregivers' experiences illustrate the need to understand hope as collectively produced, as emotional and moral labour, and as entangled in broader cultural expectations of medical advances. Such understandings may help clinicians as they guide patients and caregivers through the complexities of diagnosis, treatment, emerging evidence and possible futures in the precision era. Developing a better understanding of informal caregivers' experiences of caring for patients receiving precision therapies is important for improving support to patients and their caregivers.

Clinical Trials in the Brain Tumour Population: Challenges and Strategies for the Future

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review identifies challenges and barriers to successful development of drugs in neuro-oncology trials at the preclinical, clinical and translational stages that we believe has contributed to poor outcomes for patients over the last 30 years.

RECENT FINDINGS

Several key strategies have been proposed by leading groups to address these and improve patient outcomes. Better preclinical testing using more sophisticated and clinically relevant models is needed. A greater focus on assessing blood-brain barrier penetrance and targeting key biological processes such as tumour heterogeneity and immune response is vital. Adopting innovative trial designs permitting faster results and addressing key issues (including molecular heterogeneity and combinatorial approaches) is highly desirable. A stronger translational focus is also clearly needed. Implementation of these strategies is already starting to occur. Maintaining and increasing these novel approaches will require coordinated efforts between clinicians, scientists, industry and funding/regulator bodies.

NUTMEG: A randomized phase II study of nivolumab and temozolomide versus temozolomide alone in newly diagnosed older patients with glioblastoma

Background

There is an immunologic rationale to evaluate immunotherapy in the older glioblastoma population, who have been underrepresented in prior trials. The NUTMEG study evaluated the combination of nivolumab and temozolomide in patients with glioblastoma aged 65 years and older.

Methods

NUTMEG was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma aged 65 years and older. The experimental arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant nivolumab and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of hypofractionated chemoradiation with temozolomide, then adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to improve overall survival (OS) in the experimental arm.

Results

A total of 103 participants were randomized, with 69 in the experimental arm and 34 in the standard arm. The median (range) age was 73 (65-88) years. After 37 months of follow-up, the median OS was 11.6 months (95% CI, 9.7-13.4) in the experimental arm and 11.8 months (95% CI, 8.3-14.8) in the standard arm. For the experimental arm relative to the standard arm, the OS hazard ratio was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.54-1.33). In the experimental arm, there were three grade 3 immune-related adverse events which resolved, with no unexpected serious adverse events.

Conclusions

Due to insufficient evidence of benefit with nivolumab, the decision was made not to transition to a phase III trial. No new safety signals were identified with nivolumab. This complements the existing series of immunotherapy trials. Research is needed to identify biomarkers and new strategies including combinations.

From doctors to ancillary staff: Regional and metropolitan cancer workforce perceptions and distress resulting from COVID-19 pandemic adaptations

INTRODUCTION

The declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in necessary and rapid changes to health service delivery. In the Australian context, it has been broadly identified that these impacts have been felt by health care workers (HCW) providing care. We aimed to capture oncology HCW perceptions of support, stress, personal ability to meet needs and institutional preparedness across longitudinal periods of COVID-19 response in the early stages of the pandemic.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

An electronic survey was developed to measure the weekly impacts and distress experienced by HCW during the early phases of the pandemic. Hospital email communications relating to pandemic directives were noted. HCW included nursing, medical, ancillary staff and allied health team members at 2 study sites, 1 metropolitan and 1 regional center in Queensland, Australia. Descriptive statistics were applied to quantitative data, and a framework analysis for qualitative data. Key themes were synthesized using mixed methods approaches.

RESULTS

A total of 176 HCW consented to participate. Four key themes were identified. Key theme 1 was strategies for protection, and included the subthemes of self-isolation, using personal protective equipment (PPE), protecting patients and families and each other. Key theme 2 was navigating rules and keeping up, and included the subthemes of compliance, exceptions, conflict and complex decision fatigue. Key theme 3 was tempered optimism, with subthemes including this is grief, pride in one's place and strategies for coping. Key theme 4 was framing the new normal, with subthemes including using technology, second wave and uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

Staff groups reported the emotional impacts of rapid change across clinical areas and centers. Distress corresponded to rapid change amid uncertainty, rather than reported infection rates. These findings give insight into the experiences of patient facing oncology HCW during periods of uncertainty, potentially informing policy in the future.

CTNI-42. GENOME-WIDE DNA METHYLATION PATTERNS IN VERTU: A RANDOMIZED PHASE II TRIAL OF VELIPARIB, RADIOTHERAPY AND TEMOZOLOMIDE IN PATIENTS WITH MGMT-UNMETHYLATED GLIOBLASTOMA

BACKGROUND

VERTU was a randomized phase II trial evaluating veliparib, a brain-penetrant PARP inhibitor, combined with radiotherapy and temozolomide, for patients with newly diagnosed MGMT-unmethylated glioblastoma. As part of planned correlative work after study completion, we assessed genome-wide DNA methylation patterns to predict methylation class, glioblastoma subtype and MGMT status.

METHODS

Patients were randomized 2:1 to experimental (60Gy/30 fractions with veliparib 200mg bid, then temozolomide 150-200mg/m2 D1-5 + veliparib 40mg bid D1-7 Q28D for 6 cycles) versus standard arm (60Gy/30 fractions with temozolomide 75mg/m2 daily, then temozolomide 150-200mg/m2 D1-5 Q28D for 6 cycles). The primary objective to improve 6-month progression-free survival (PFS-6m) was not met (doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noab111). Methylation data were generated using the Illumina Infinium Methylation EPIC bead chip array. Tumor tissues were categorized using the Heidelberg methylation-based classifier.

RESULTS

Methylation data were successfully generated for 98/125 patients (poor quality DNA [n = 12], no consent [n = 11], insufficient tissue [n = 4]). Those with classifier scores below 0.5 (n = 25), tumor microenvironment only (n = 6) and rediagnosis as pleomorphic xanthoastrocytoma (n = 1) were excluded, leaving n = 66. Methylation classes were GBM RTK II (n = 23, PFS-6m 43% [95%CI 23-62]), RTK I (n = 20, PFS-6m 50% [95%CI 27-69]), MES (n = 20, PFS-6m 40% [95%CI 19-60]), MID (n = 2) and G34 (n = 1). Glioblastoma subtypes were mesenchymal (n = 28, PFS-6m 50% [95%CI 30-66]), proneural (n = 24, PFS-6m 50% [95%CI 29-68]) and classical (n = 14, PFS-6m 36% [95%CI 13-59]). MGMT status were unmethylated (n = 58, PFS-6m 48% [95%CI 35-60]) and methylated (n = 8, PFS-6m 38% [95%CI 9-67]). There was no evidence of interaction between treatment arm and methylation class (excluding GBM MID and G34, P = 0.45), glioblastoma subtype (P = 0.68) or MGMT status (P = 0.52).

CONCLUSIONS

Genome-wide DNA methylation patterns in VERTU identified a spectrum of methylation-defined subgroups, reflecting tumoral heterogeneity. This may have utility for future clinical trials and practice. The effect of veliparib in VERTU appeared to be consistent across subgroups. ACTRN12615000407594.

CSIG-13. CLINICAL IMPACT OF CDKN2A/B DELETIONS IN IDH-MUTANT ASTROCYTOMAS

BACKGROUND

IDH-mutant astrocytomas with CDKN2A/B homozygous deletions (HD) are now categorized as grade 4 astrocytomas. It is unclear how these HD astrocytomas should be treated. We aimed to compare 3-year outcomes for HD versus heterozygous deleted (HeD) IDH-mutant astrocytomas, describe the prognostic impact of deletions relative to histologic grade and describe differences in outcomes based on treatment regimen.

METHODS

Molecular and clinical data concerning IDH-mutant glioma patients +/-CDKN2A/B deletions were retrieved across four neuro-oncology centers and two tumor banks from 01/2016-07/2021.

RESULTS

48 patients with HD or HeD were identified. Median follow-up time was 4.0 years, median age 33 (range 20-74) years. Sixteen astrocytomas were histologic grade 4, remainder were grade 2 (n= 9) and grade 3 (n= 23). HD were detected in 16 patients. Survival data were unavailable in n= 1 HD and n= 2 HeD patients. 3-year OS for CDKN2A/B HD and HeD groups were 47% versus 67% (log-rank p= 0.004). For grades 2, 3 and 4, 3-year OS for HD were 100% (n= 1), 57% (n= 7) and 29% (n= 7) respectively, 3-year OS for HeD were 100% (n= 7), 56% (n= 16) and 57% (n= 7) respectively. In HD patients, six were treated with concurrent temozolomide-radiotherapy (3-year OS 50%) and five with radiotherapy and sequential temozolomide only (3-year OS 80%, log-rank p= 0.38). Treatment data were unavailable in two patients and three were treated with “other” regimens. Sequential regimens were preferentially used in histologic grade 2 and 3 cases.

CONCLUSION

Preliminary data are in keeping with current literature and are one of the first to describe outcomes based on clinical regimen. There was insufficient evidence of OS differences between concurrent and sequential therapy, though conclusions are limited by sample size and data maturity. Additional follow-up data are required to further define optimal treatment for these patients.

CTIM-24. NUTMEG: A RANDOMIZED PHASE II STUDY OF NIVOLUMAB AND TEMOZOLOMIDE VERSUS TEMOZOLOMIDE ALONE IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED ELDERLY PATIENTS WITH GLIOBLASTOMA

BACKGROUND

Nivolumab is a PD-1 inhibitor with known safety profile. An increase in mutations as we age is well documented in glioblastoma and other cancers. Higher mutational load is associated with increased response to nivolumab in extracranial malignancies. NUTMEG examined the activity of nivolumab added to temozolomide in glioblastoma patients aged ≥ 65 years.

METHODS

NUTMEG was an international multicenter phase II trial for newly diagnosed glioblastoma patients aged ≥ 65 years, randomized 2:1 to experimental (40Gy/15 fractions with temozolomide 75mg/m2, then 6 cycles of temozolomide 150-200mg/m2 D1-5 Q28D + nivolumab 240mg D1,15 Q28D C1-4 and 480mg D1 Q28D C5-6) versus standard arm (40Gy/15 fractions with temozolomide 75mg/m2, then 6 cycles of temozolomide alone 150-200mg/m2 D1-5 Q28D), stratified by age, ECOG status, MGMT status and resection extent.

RESULTS

103 patients were enrolled (69 in experimental arm, 34 in standard arm). Median age was 73 years, 36% ECOG 0, 57% MGMT-unmethylated and 51% gross macroscopic resection. Median follow-up is 31 months to date, with 77 deaths (surviving patients to continue follow-up and final results will be presented). Median overall survival was 11.8 months in the experimental arm versus 12.0 months in the standard arm (HR 0.95 95%CI 0.59-1.53 for experimental relative to control). Six-month progression-free survival rate using mRANO was 64% in the experimental arm versus 49% in the standard arm (HR 0.81 95%CI 0.51-1.26). Grade 3/4 adverse events were reported in 46% of experimental arm (7% lung infection, 7% thromboembolic events, 6% fatigue, 6% muscle weakness) and in 29% of control arm (9% fatigue, 6% seizure, 6% thromboembolic events).

CONCLUSIONS

There was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit with nivolumab in this population. No new safety signals were identified. Central imaging review is underway and correlative studies will characterize the immune landscape, including mutational load, neoantigen and other immune markers. NCT04195139.

Pembrolizumab-induced acute right L5 neuritis unresponsive to steroids

We present a case of a patient with metastatic lung adenocarcinoma who developed severe right lower limb radicular pain in a L5-S1 dermatomal distribution 5 months into treatment with carboplatin, pemetrexed and pembrolizumab. MRI of the lumbar spine demonstrated contrast enhancement of the right L5 nerve root consistent with neuritis. The patient was treated with intravenous methylprednisolone 2 mg/kg/day for 3 days, followed by oral prednisolone 1 mg/kg/day with a slow wean over 6 weeks. There was no improvement and their performance status deteriorated to an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) score of 3, representing capability of only limited self-care. We commenced induction therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin 2 g/kg over 5 days, which resulted in complete resolution of pain sustained for 3 weeks before recurrence of symptoms. We continued maintenance therapy with intravenous immunoglobulin 0.4 g/kg over 2 days at 4–5 weekly intervals, which led to resolution of symptoms and ECOG score to 1.

Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA): protocol for a multiarm randomised clinical trial for people affected by glioblastoma

INTRODUCTION

Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common malignant primary central nervous system cancer in adults. The objective of the Multi-Arm GlioblastoMa Australasia (MAGMA) trial is to test hypotheses in real world setting to improve survival of people with GBM. Initial experimental arms are evaluating the effectiveness of interventions in newly diagnosed GBM (ndGBM). This study will compare maximal surgical resection followed by chemoradiotherapy plus adjuvant chemotherapy for 6 months with the addition of (1) 'neoadjuvant' chemotherapy beginning as soon as possible after surgery and/or (2) adjuvant chemotherapy continued until progression within the same study platform.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

MAGMA will establish a platform for open-label, multiarm, multicentre randomised controlled testing of treatments for GBM. The study began recruiting in September 2020 and recruitment to the initial two interventions in MAGMA is expected to continue until September 2023.Adults aged ≥18 years with ndGBM will be given the option of undergoing randomisation to each study intervention separately, thereby giving rise to a partial factorial design, with two separate randomisation time points, one for neoadjuvant therapy and one for extended therapy. Patients will have the option of being randomised at each time point or continuing on with standard treatment.The primary outcome for the study is overall survival from the date of initial surgery until death from any cause. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival, time to first non-temozolomide treatment, overall survival from each treatment randomisation, clinically significant toxicity as measured by grade 3 or 4 adverse events and health-related quality-of-life measures. Tertiary outcomes are predictive/prognostic biomarkers and health utilities and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio.The primary analysis of overall survival will be performed separately for each study intervention according to the intention to treat principle on all patients randomised to each study intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study (Protocol version 2.0 dated 23 November 2020) was approved by a lead Human Research Ethics Committee (Sydney Local Health District: 2019/ETH13297). The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12620000048987.

Routines of isolation? A qualitative study of informal caregiving in the context of glioma in Australia

Informal caregiving for a person living with glioma can be both rewarding and multidimensionally challenging, given the potential for debilitating symptoms, cognitive impairment or personality changes, as early as diagnosis. There is growing evidence that, due to the demands of care, experiences and feelings of loneliness and isolation among informal caregivers are widespread, and opportunities for quality or meaningful social connectedness are lacking. While considerable research has quantified the causes and effects of loneliness and isolation in informal care contexts, the lived experience of loneliness has received relatively little attention. The aim of this study was to better understand the everyday experiences of a group of home-based informal caregivers of people living with glioma in Queensland, Australia. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 32 informal caregivers, purposively sampled, and recruited through a tertiary hospital, in this paper, we explore how the various experiences, demands, and social and relational dynamics in/of informal care (re)produce forms of isolation and loneliness. Using the framework approach to thematic analysis, we derived four themes: (a) the 'need' to be near the care recipient, and the implications for caregiver mobility; (b) the strong sense of responsibility for care, and the virtues of 'good' caring; (c) experiences of loneliness in the company of others and (d) postponement of social connection and minimising the self. The findings, we argue, are reflective of broader social and moral norms and expectations within experiences of home-based informal care.

A phase 1b/2 study of PF-06747775 as monotherapy or in combination with Palbociclib in patients with epidermal growth factor receptor mutant advanced non-small cell lung cancer

INTRODUCTION

This Phase 1/2 study (NCT02349633) explored the safety and antitumor activity of PF-06747775 (oral, third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor [EGFR] tyrosine kinase inhibitor) in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer after progression on an EGFR inhibitor.

METHODS

Phase 1 was a dose-escalation study of PF-06747775 monotherapy (starting dose: 25 mg once daily [QD]). Phase 1b/2 evaluated PF-06747775 monotherapy at recommended Phase 2 dose (RP2D; Cohort 1); PF-06747775 200 mg QD plus palbociclib (starting dose: 100 mg QD orally; Cohort 2A); and PF-06747775 monotherapy at RP2D in a Japanese lead-in cohort.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were treated. Median treatment duration was 40.1 weeks. Monotherapy maximum tolerated dose was not determined. Two patients in Cohort 2A had dose-limiting toxicities. The monotherapy RP2D was estimated to be 200 mg QD. Most frequently reported adverse events (AEs) were diarrhea (69.2%), paronychia (69.2%), and rash (60.0%). Most AEs were grades 1-3. Overall, objective response rate (90% confidence interval [CI]) was 41.5% (31.2-52.5%). Median (range) duration of response was 11.09 (2.70-34.57) months. Median progression-free survival (90% CI) was 8.1 (5.4-23.3) months.

CONCLUSIONS

PF-06747775 had a manageable safety profile and the study design highlights important considerations for future anti-EGFR agent development.

Beyond standard data collection – the promise and potential of BRAIN (Brain tumour Registry Australia INnovation and translation registry)

Background

Real-world data (RWD) is increasingly being embraced as an invaluable source of information to address clinical and policy-relevant questions that are unlikely to ever be answered by clinical trials. However, the largely unrealised potential of RWD is the value to be gained by supporting prospective studies and translational research. Here we describe the design and implementation of an Australian brain cancer registry, BRAIN, which is pursuing these opportunities.

Methods

BRAIN was designed by a panel of clinicians in conjunction with BIOGRID to capture comprehensive clinical data on patients diagnosed with brain tumours from diagnosis through treatment to recurrence or death. Extensive internal and external testing was undertaken, followed by implementation at multiple sites across Victoria and Tasmania.

Results

Between February 2021 and December 2021, a total of 350 new patients from 10 sites, including one private and two regional, were entered into BRAIN. Additionally, BRAIN supports the world’s first registry trial in neuro-oncology, EX-TEM, addressing the optimal duration of post-radiation temozolomide; and BioBRAIN, a dedicated brain tumour translational program providing a pipeline for biospecimen collection matched with linked clinical data.

Conclusions

Here we report on the first data collection effort in brain tumours for Australia, which we believe to be unique worldwide given the number of sites and patients involved and the extent to which the registry resource is being leveraged to support clinical and translational research. Further directions such as passive data flow and data linkages, use of artificial intelligence and inclusion of patient-entered data are being explored.

Factors that influence clinical trial participation by patients with cancer in Australia: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are the backbone of research. It is well recognised that patient participation in clinical trials can be influenced by a myriad of factors such as access to a clinical trial, restrictive trial eligibility criteria and perceptions held by patients or physicians about clinical trials. Australia is a key stakeholder in the global clinical trials sphere. This scoping review protocol aims to identify and map the current literature describing factors that influence clinical trial participation of patients with cancer, in Australia.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews will be used to conduct this review. Four electronic databases will be systematically searched for relevant published literature on this topic, as a collaborative process involving the lead investigator and a health science librarian. We will hand search of citations and reference lists of the included papers, and a grey literature search through Google scholar, Grey Literature Report, Web of Science Conference Proceedings. All published papers pertaining to patients diagnosed with solid organ or haematological malignancies will be included. Studies which did not involve patients from Australia will also be excluded. A customised data extraction tool will be pilot tested and refined, and subsequently two independent reviewers will perform data screening and extraction. Results will be collated and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews: PRISMA-Scoping Reviews. Quantitative data will be presented using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be synthesised using thematic analyses. This scoping review does not require ethical approval as the methodology focuses on analysing information from available published data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Results will be disseminated to relevant stakeholders including consumers, clinicians, professional organisations and policy-makers through peer-reviewed publications and national and international conferences.

Experiencing the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic Whilst Living With Cancer

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has resulted in considerable consequences for many cancer patients, exacerbating pre-existing systemic health system limitations as well as creating new challenges. From socially distanced clinics and the widespread introduction of telehealth, to the halting of clinical trials and the reassessment of what constitutes "essential" treatment, care in oncology has abruptly changed. There is currently limited analysis of cancer patients' experiences of the pandemic and its impacts on illness, wellness, and everyday life. Through semi-structured interviews with 54 people living with cancer during the 2020 phase of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in Australia, we explore how patients experience illness and care in reflecting upon a range of pandemic challenges, including delay, distance, and vulnerability. We find that in some cases, these pandemic conditions redefined the meaning of essential cancer care, reconfigured expectations around clinical trials, constructed new affective distances, and amplified dread and fear for people living with cancer.

LUMOS - Low and Intermediate Grade Glioma Umbrella Study of Molecular Guided TherapieS at relapse: Protocol for a pilot study

Introduction

Grades 2 and 3 gliomas (G2/3 gliomas), when combined, are the second largest group of malignant brain tumours in adults. The outcomes for G2/3 gliomas at progression approach the dismal outcomes for glioblastoma (GBM), yet there is a paucity of trials for Australian patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas compared with patients with GBM. LUMOS will be a pilot umbrella study for patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas that aims to match patients to targeted therapies based on molecular screening with contemporaneous tumour tissue. Participants in whom no actionable or no druggable mutation is found, or in whom the matching drug is not available, will form a comparator arm and receive standard of care chemotherapy. The objective of the LUMOS trial is to assess the feasibility of this approach in a multicentre study across five sites in Australia, with a view to establishing a national molecular screening platform for patient treatment guided by the mutational analysis of contemporaneous tissue biopsies

Methods and analysis

This study will be a multicentre pilot study enrolling patients with recurrent grade 2/3 gliomas that have previously been treated with radiotherapy and chemotherapy at diagnosis or at first relapse. Contemporaneous tumour tissue at the time of first relapse, defined as tissue obtained within 6 months of relapse and without subsequent intervening therapy, will be obtained from patients. Molecular screening will be performed by targeted next-generation sequencing at the reference laboratory (PathWest, Perth, Australia). RNA and DNA will be extracted from representative formalin-fixed paraffin embedded tissue scrolls or microdissected from sections on glass slides tissue sections following a review of the histology by pathologists. Extracted nucleic acid will be quantified by Qubit Fluorometric Quantitation (Thermo Fisher Scientific). Library preparation and targeted capture will be performed using the TruSight Tumor 170 (TST170) kit and samples sequenced on NextSeq 550 (Illumina) using NextSeq V.2.5 hi output reagents, according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Data analysis will be performed using the Illumina BaseSpace TST170 app v1.02 and a custom tertiary pipeline, implemented within the Clinical Genomics Workspace software platform from PierianDx (also refer to section 3.2). Primary outcomes for the study will be the number of patients enrolled and the number of patients who complete molecular screening. Secondary outcomes will include the proportion of screened patients enrolled; proportion of patients who complete molecular screening; the turn-around time of molecular screening; and the value of a brain tumour specific multi-disciplinary tumour board, called the molecular tumour advisory panel as measured by the proportion of patients in whom the treatment recommendation was refined compared with the recommendations from the automated bioinformatics platform of the reference laboratory testing.

Ethics and dissemination

The study was approved by the lead Human Research Ethics Committee of the Sydney Local Health District: Protocol No. X19-0383. The study will be conducted in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki 2013, guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the National Health and Medical Research Council National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007, updated 2018 and as amended periodically). Results will be disseminated using a range of media channels including newsletters, social media, scientific conferences and peer-reviewed publications.

Trial registration number

ACTRN12620000087954; Pre-results.

INNV-08. LOW AND INTERMEDIATE GRADE GLIOMA UMBRELLA STUDY OF MOLECULAR GUIDED THERAPIES (LUMOS) STUDY

BACKGROUND

Grade 2 and 3 (G2/3) gliomas are the second largest group of brain tumors in adults. Although the prognosis for G2/3 gliomas at the time of relapse mirror those of glioblastoma, there are few trials in this space.

METHODS

LUMOS was a national multi-center pilot study for patients with relapsed G2/3 gliomas designed to match contemporaneous tissue obtained at the time of disease progression with subsequent targeted therapies. The objective was to establish the feasibility of a precision oncology, umbrella approach to obtain and type tissue within a useful timeframe. As a key feature of LUMOS, a multidisciplinary Molecular Tumor Advisory Panel (MTAP) with subspecialty neuro-oncology expertise was formed to interpret the complex genomic information and provide a simplified recommendation to the treating physician.

RESULTS

Ten patients (median age 42: range 32-62; four G2 astrocytoma, one G3 astrocytoma, three G2 oligoendroglioma, one G3 oligodendroglioma, one mixed tumor) were enrolled in the study. Eight patients had biopsies within 6 months of study entry whilst two underwent a biopsy during the study. All patients had potentially targetable alterations (10 IDH, 3 FGFR, 2 PIK3K, CCND3, NRAS, CDK4, PRPRZ1-MET fusion and MET amplification). Matched therapies were delivered for two patients via compassionate access outside the study. The median turnaround time (TAT) of MTAP reports was 6.2 weeks (range 4.2-9.7 weeks) but 4.6 weeks when lag time for shipping was removed.

CONCLUSION

LUMOS confirmed that this design was feasible with good turnaround times. The MTAP facilitated education and support for treating physicians. Thes findings support moving to a larger study using contemporaneous and longitudinal tissue samples matched with targeted therapies as part of a comprehensive umbrella study design. Delivery and interpretation of molecular data is a challenge shared across oncology which may be mitigated with a neuro-oncology specific molecular tumor board.

RTID-05. THE MULTI-ARM GLIOBLASTOMA AUSTRALASIA (MAGMA) TRIAL

BACKGROUND

Survival outcomes for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma have not changed significantly since the introduction of concurrent temozolomide with post-surgical radiation followed by adjuvant temozolomide.

METHODS

Multi-Arm Glioblastoma Australasia (MAGMA) is a recently initiated phase III multi-arm, multi-centre randomized trial for patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma, led by the Australian Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology (COGNO), that will concurrently test multiple treatment questions. Initially, a partial factorial design will be implemented to compare the current standard of care with either or both of (1) neoadjuvant temozolomide and (2) aduvant temozolomide continued beyond six months until progression. MAGMA will transition to a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) design as additional tratment question are introduced. Treatment allocation to each question will be balanced (1:1) using minimisation over several stratification factors, including study site, age, IDH-mutation status, surgical extent and randomization to the prior treatment question(s). The primary outcome is overall survival. Secondary outcomes include progression-free survival (measured by mRANO), time to first non-temozolomide systemic treatment, clinically significant toxicity as measured by Grade 2/4 adverse events, and health-related quality of life measures. Parsimonious data collection and a streamlined assessment schedule have been incorporated to mitigate the burden of data collection (such as low grade toxicity from temozolomide), and to encourage participation in regional and rural settings. A consortium model has been adopted to foster neuro-oncology expertise and infrastructure and share academic credit and future design opportunities.

PROGRESS

Recruitment commenced in September 2020. To date, 60 patients have been recruited from an initial sample size target of 250 patients for each of these initial two treatment questions. Of these 60 patients, 45 have been randomized in Question 1 (neoadjuvant chemotherapy) whilst 50 randomized in Question 2 (prolonged adjuvant chemotherapy). To date, 14 of the 27 intended sites are open to recruitment.

A sociology of precision-in-practice: The affective and temporal complexities of everyday clinical care

The idea of 'precision medicine', which has gained increasing traction since the early 2000s, is now ubiquitous in health and medicine. Though varied in its implementation across fields, precision medicine has raised hopes of revolutionary treatments and has spurred the proliferation of novel therapeutics, the alteration of professional trajectories and various reconfigurations of health/care. Nowhere is the promise of precision medicine more apparent, nor further institutionalised, than in the field of oncology. While the transformative potential of precision medicine is widely taken for granted, there remains scant attention to how it is being experienced at the coalface of care. Here, drawing on the perspectives of 54 cancer care professionals gleaned through eight focus group discussions in two hospitals in Australia, we explore clinicians' experiences of the day-to-day dynamics of precision-in-practice. We illustrate some of the affective and temporal complexities, analysed here under the rubrics of enchantment, acceleration and distraction that are emerging alongside the uptake of precision medicine in the field of oncology. We argue that these complexities, and their dis/continuities with earlier iterations of cancer care, demonstrate the need for sociological analyses of precision medicine as it is being implemented in practice and its varied effects on 'routine' care.

Abstract CT101: Phase I safety and bioimaging trial of ifabotuzumab in patients with glioblastoma

Overview Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is the most frequent and lethal primary brain neoplasm, with only 10% of patients surviving 5 years.1 EphA3 is a tumor restricted antigen expressed in various solid tumors and the tumor vasculature of 100% of GBM.2,3 Ifabotuzumab is a non-fucosylated IgG1κ humaneered antibody targeting the EphA3 receptor.4 A Phase I study of ifabotuzumab in haematological malignancies showed it was well tolerated and clinically active.5 Here we report on a Phase I dose escalation and biodistribution study of ifabotuzumab in recurrent GBM. Study Design The primary objective is to determine the safety and recommended Phase II dose of ifabotuzumab in GBM patients (pts). Secondary objectives are to determine the biodistribution and pharmacokinetics (PK) of 89Zr- ifabotuzumab, the frequency of EphA3 positive GBM and response rates. On day 1, eligible pts with measurable tumors received a trace (5mg) dose of zirconium labelled ifabotuzumab (89Zr-ifab) followed by sequential PET imaging over 1 week to determine its biodistribution, frequency of in situ EphA3 expression and quantitative tumor uptake. Safety assessments and PK sampling were also undertaken. On day 8, pts commenced weekly ifabotuzumab infusions over 2 hours in one of two cohorts (3.5mg/kg, 5.25 mg/kg). On day 36, pts received both 89Zr-ifab and ifabotuzumab, allowing assessment of receptor occupancy. Response rate (RANO) and survival data were collected. Pts then continued on ifabotuzumab until progression. Results In total, 12 pts have been enrolled, including 6 in the 3.5mg/kg and 6 in the 5.25 mg/kg dose cohorts. Mean age was 51.6 years (±14.24) and 7/12 pts were male. Treatment emergent adverse events included infusion reactions in 4 pts, seizures in 3 pts, cerebral oedema in 1, rash in 1, headaches in 8, eye disorder in 1. Most were considered related to study drug except seizure in 2 pts, headaches and eye disorder. Seizures and infusion reactions were readily managed with increased premedications after the first occurrence. The best response was stable disease for 23 weeks. 89Zr-ifab-PET scans showed rapid, tumor-specific targeting at all known tumor sites and in all pts, but with no normal tissue uptake. MRI scans showed predominant T2/FLAIR changes, occasionally marked, which were consistent with treatment effect of ifabotuzumab on tumor vasculature. The mean ± SD (n=12) PK parameters for first infusion 89Zr-ifab were T½α= 9.03 ± 4.45 hr, T½β = 92.50 ± 65.65 hr, V1 = 3.75 ± 0.67 L, CL= 132.11 ± 70.16 mL/hr. Conclusions: Ifabotuzumab demonstrates highly sensitive, specific and reproducible targeting of the tumor and tumor microenvironment in all patients in this study. The imaging changes suggest direct modulation of the tumor vasculature. Additional studies are planned to evaluate ifabotuzumab as part of an antibody-drug conjugate in various solid tumor types. References: 1. Stupp R, et al, Lancet Oncology 10:459-66, 2009 2. Day BW, et al. Cancer Cell 23:238-48, 2013 3. Vail ME, et al. Cancer Research 74:4470-81, 2014 4. Tomasevic N, et al. Growth Factors 32:223-35, 2014 5. Swords RT, et al. Leukemia Research 50:123-131, 2016

Citation Format: Hui K. Gan, Lawrence Cher, Po Inglis, Zarnie Lwin, Eddie Lau, Christian Wichmann, Alex McDonald, Ashray Gunjur, Uwe Ackermann, Kirsten Remen, Kate Fluck, Gel Bolarnos, Nancy Guo, Sze Ting Lee, Sylvia Gong, Jodie B. Palmer, Kunthi Pathmaraj, Graeme J. O'Keefe, Fiona E. Scott, Bryan W. Day, Andrew W. Boyd, Paul Thomas, Omar Ahmed, Dale Chappell, Cameron Durrant, Andrew M. Scott. Phase I safety and bioimaging trial of ifabotuzumab in patients with glioblastoma [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr CT101.

Barriers and potential solutions to international collaboration in neuro-oncology clinical trials: Challenges from the Australian perspective

AIM

The neuro-oncology community in Australia is well positioned to collaborate internationally, with a motivated trials group, strong regulatory bodies and an attractive fiscal environment. We sought to identify gaps in the Australian neuro-oncology clinical trials landscape and describe strategies to increase international trial access in Australia.

METHODS

We searched clinical trial registries to identify active adult primary brain cancer trials. We compared the participation rate and phase of these trials between tumour types and countries. A survey was distributed to the Cooperative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology membership to identify barriers and solutions to effective international collaboration.

RESULTS

Globally, 307 trials for adult primary brain cancers were identified. These included 50% pharmaceutical agents, 18% cellular therapies and 9% radiation therapy. Twelve adult primary brain cancer trials were actively recruiting in Australia at the time the survey was sent out. There were more early phase brain cancer trials (34%) compared with colorectal and breast cancer (21% and 24%, respectively). In Australia, 92% of brain cancer trials were involving pharmaceutical agents. The most commonly cited barrier was lack of funding for international trials (86%) and insufficient research time (75%). High ranking solutions included increasing the availability of funding for international trials and creating opportunities to develop personal relationships with collaborators. Accreditation of clinical research key performance indicators into practice (88%) and hospital accreditation (73%) also ranked highly.

CONCLUSIONS

Participation in international research in Australia could be improved by embedding clinical research targets into institutional funding, provision of funding for early phase studies and streamlining mutual ethics schemes.

LEAP-005: A phase 2 multicohort study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated selected solid tumors—Results from the gastric cancer cohort

4030

Background: Lenvatinib, an anti-angiogenic multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with the anti‒PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with manageable safety in the first- or second-line in a phase 2 trial of patients with advanced gastric cancer. LEAP-005 (NCT03797326) is a phase 2, multicohort, nonrandomized, open-label study evaluating efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors; here, we present findings from the gastric cancer cohort of LEAP-005. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic and/or unresectable gastric cancer, received at least 2 prior lines of therapy, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS of 0‒1, and provided a tissue sample evaluable for PD-L1 expression. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab (approximately 2 years) or until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment with lenvatinib could continue beyond 2 years in patients experiencing clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were ORR (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR; comprising CR, PR, and SD), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W from treatment initiation for 54 weeks, then Q12W to week 102, and Q24W thereafter. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the gastric cancer cohort; 87% were male, 58% were aged < 65 years, and 71% had PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1. Median time from first dose to data cutoff (April 10, 2020) was 7.0 months (range, 1.9‒11.9); 19 patients (61%) had discontinued treatment. ORR was 10% (95% CI, 2‒26); 1 patient had CR (3%), and 2 had a PR (6%). 12 patients (39%) had SD. Median DOR was not reached (range, 2.1+ to 2.3+ months). DCR was 48% (95% CI, 30‒67). Median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8‒4.2). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.6‒8.7). 28 patients (90%) had treatment-related AEs, including 13 patients (42%) with grade 3‒5 AEs. 1 patient had a treatment-related AE that led to death (hemorrhage). 8 patients (26%) had immune-mediated AEs: hypothyroidism (n = 5), hyperthyroidism (n = 2), and pneumonitis (n = 1). There were no infusion-related reactions. Conclusions: In patients with advanced gastric cancer who received 2 prior lines of therapy, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile. Based on these data, enrollment in the gastric cancer cohort has been expanded to 100 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03797326.

Psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 upon a diverse Australian oncology workforce: From doctors to ancillary staff

e23016

Background: Potential moral hazards from COVID-19 for patient-facing oncology staff include rationalizing treatment, but prior research into staff distress has not included ancillary/administrative staff or compared geographic settings. We sought to document measures of distress and perceived preparedness from diverse oncology staff during the COVID-19 pandemic response, and correlate these with unfolding events. Methods: We utilised a mixed-methods approach comprising weekly diarising of executive communications and events-by investigators, and prospective self-administered online surveys-by staff. Survey domains included perceived institutional preparedness, personal wellbeing, and perceived stress using a distress thermometer (0-10, no-extreme distress). Responses were Likert-scaled or free-text. Quantitative responses were aggregated by role/site and analysed using R. These were correlated with emergent qualitative themes using the Framework Method. The study was conducted at a metropolitan and a regional hospital in Queensland, Australia. Results: 12 surveys across 18 weeks commencing April 3, 2020 (encompassing 1st lockdown, lockdown easing, and 2nd lockdown) had 993 individual responses. 40% respondents were located regionally. Role categories included: nursing (50%), allied health (18%), medical (16%), administrative (15%), ancillary (e.g. cleaner, food service) (1%). Emergent themes were: S trategies for protection- at work and home. Up to 27% respondents reported being able to attend to critical personal needs only sometimes or less, although patients were perceived to be well supported most/all of the time (>90% responses). Navigating rules and keeping up-high levels of perceived institutional preparedness in >75% responders coexisted alongside fluctuating levels of self-reported distress, from median 5 (IQR 3-7) at 1st lockdown outset to 1 (IQR 1-4) after lockdown restriction easing. Tempered optimism-pride in one’s place was reported both as reflecting healthcare worker identity and as Australians in the context of low local infection rates. No significant differences in distress or preparedness perceptions were evident comparing geographic sites. Framing the new normal-although respondents longitudinally reported increasing familiarity with pandemic directives, distress levels increased concurrently with the announcement of 2nd lockdown. Conclusions: In the context of low local COVID-19 infection rates, oncology staff regardless of role and geographic setting reported high perceptions of institutional preparedness. Distress levels increased concurrently with lockdown phases and reports of distress and psychosocial workload fatigue were made by various workers including administrative and ancillary. These should be considered frontline staff for the purpose of workplace psychosocial support in pandemic responses.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated biliary tract cancers in the multicohort phase 2 LEAP-005 study

4080

Background: Second-line treatment options for patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) are limited. Lenvatinib, an anti-angiogenic multikinase inhibitor, in combination with the programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with select advanced solid tumors. LEAP-005 (NCT03797326) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors; here we present results from the BTC cohort of LEAP-005. Methods: In this nonrandomized, open-label, phase 2 study, eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically documented advanced (metastatic and/or unresectable) BTC with disease progression after 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS of 0‒1, and tissue sample evaluable for PD-L1 expression. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles (approximately 2 years) or until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment with lenvatinib could continue beyond 2 years in patients experiencing clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were ORR (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and safety. Secondary endpoints were the disease control rate (DCR; comprising CR, PR, and SD), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W from treatment initiation for 54 weeks, then Q12W to week 102, and Q24W thereafter. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the BTC cohort (ECOG PS 1, 55%; 84% ex-US). As of April 10, 2020, median time from first dose to data cutoff (DCO) was 9.5 months (range, 3.1‒11.9), with 8 patients on treatment at DCO. There were 3 (10%) PRs and 18 (58%) SDs. ORR was 10% (95% CI, 2‒26), and DCR was 68% (95% CI, 49‒83). Median DOR was 5.3 months (range, 2.1+ to 6.2). Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI, 2.1‒6.4). Median OS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.6 to NR). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (97%), including 15 (48%) who had grade 3 AEs; there were no grade 4 or 5 treatment-related AEs. 2 (6%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pyrexia; n = 1 each). The most frequent treatment-related AEs were hypertension (42%), dysphonia (39%), diarrhea (32%), fatigue (32%), and nausea (32%). 14 patients (45%) had immune-mediated AEs and 1 patient (3%) had an infusion-related reaction. Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated encouraging efficacy and manageable toxicity in patients with advanced BTC who had received 1 line of prior therapy. Based on these data, enrollment in the BTC cohort has been expanded to 100 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03797326.

A randomized phase II trial of veliparib, radiotherapy and temozolomide in patients with unmethylated MGMT glioblastoma: the VERTU study

Background

Temozolomide offers minimal benefit in patients with glioblastoma with unmethylated O⁶-methylguanine-DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter status, hence, the need for novel therapies. This study evaluated whether veliparib, a brain-penetrant poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor, acts synergistically with radiation and temozolomide.

Methods

VERTU was a multicenter 2:1 randomized phase II trial in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma and MGMT-unmethylated promotor status. The experimental arm consisted of veliparib and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant veliparib and temozolomide. The standard arm consisted of concurrent temozolomide and radiotherapy, followed by adjuvant temozolomide. The primary objective was to extend the progression-free survival rate at six months (PFS-6m) in the experimental arm.

Results

A total of 125 participants were enrolled, with 84 in the experimental arm and 41 in the standard arm. The median age was 61 years, 70% were male, 59% had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status of 0, and 87% underwent macroscopic resection. PFS-6m was 46% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 36%-57%) in the experimental arm and 31% (95% CI: 18%-46%) in the standard arm. Median overall survival was 12.7 months (95% CI: 11.4-14.5 months) in the experimental arm and 12.8 months (95% CI: 9.5-15.8 months) in the standard arm. The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were thrombocytopenia and neutropenia, with no new safety signals.

Conclusion

The veliparib-containing regimen was feasible and well tolerated. However, there was insufficient evidence of clinical benefit in this population. Further information from correlative translational work and other trials of PARP inhibitors in glioblastoma are still awaited.

Semiqualitative research protocol to explore cancer care workforce perceptions of the health system response to COVID-19 preparations in Southeast Queensland, Australia

INTRODUCTION

Sars-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus responsible for COVID-19 officially declared pandemic in March 2020. Health systems worldwide responded with swift changes to increase workflow capacity while protecting the vulnerable, including those with cancer. This led to unprecedented and rapid restructuring of health service provision. Published data from the 2003 SARS pandemic focuses on medical and nursing staff, overlooking other departmental employees such as administration officers or food service workers. Our protocol aims to document directives and adjustments communicated to staff in two cancer care departments and correlate this with measures of distress and perceived preparedness across the spectrum of all staff involved in cancer care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We use a semiqualitative approach comprising weekly diarising of events and simultaneous staff surveys. Principal investigators will document changes at a metropolitan quaternary cancer centre and a regional cancer centre. Communications, directives and changes will be diarised in real time in four executional domains. Simultaneously, prospective voluntary self-administered online surveys will be conducted at regular intervals by staff. The survey assesses the perceived institutional preparedness and personal well-being, with a combination of Likert scaled and open response questions. A semiquantitative self-assessment of distress adapted from National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer is incorporated. Additionally, open-text personal reflections on themes including difficult decisions will be invited. Survey participants will be drawn from various work areas of the cancer care departments: administrative staff, health professionals, for example, allied health, ancillary workers, nursing and medical.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been reviewed and approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/2020/QRBW/62982). Published literature on domains of distress neglects categories of healthcare worker who form an essential part of the care delivery team. Our study hopes to gather insights about psychosocial impact and adjustment which could direct responses in future emergencies.

Resilience and ongoing quality care for cancer clinical trials during COVID-19: Experience from a tertiary hospital in Australia

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced rapid system-wide changes to be implemented within cancer care at an alarming pace. Clinical trials are a key element of comprehensive cancer care. Ensuring the continuing safe conduct of cancer clinical trials in the context of a pandemic is challenging.

METHODS

We aimed to describe the COVID-19 pandemic response of a Cancer Care Clinical Research Unit (CRU) of a tertiary hospital in Queensland, Australia. We used a mixed methods approach for this case study. Emailed directives from CRU managers to all CRU staff sharing were qualitatively analysed and mapped against our unit activities over longitudinal time points. Data from patient recruitment and protocol deviations were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Mapping activity from 11 March to 30 September 2020 revealed rapid change during the first 2 weeks. Four key strategies to accommodate change were identified: supporting patients and families, introduction of telehealth, accessing investigational product, and social distancing. Early in the pandemic we recognised that our core key stakeholders were integral to our response. When compared to the previous 12 months, our recruitment numbers dropped markedly in early phases of the response but recovered over time, as we accommodated internal and external impacts.

CONCLUSION

Our experience of agility as a necessity, adapting to support patients, and managing both clinical research activity and sponsors during the height of the pandemic response is presented here in order to inform future disaster response planning by clinical trial organisations.

Physical functional capacity of patients with glioma prior to adjuvant radiation: preliminary descriptive study

Background

Few studies have assessed physical functioning in glioma patients with grade II, III, and IV glioma prior to undergoing adjuvant radiation with or without chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to describe the baseline physical functioning capacity of patients with glioma prior to adjuvant therapy compared to validated cutoffs required to maintain independence.

Methods

This study is a cross-sectional study that recruited patients with grade II, III, and IV glioma (n = 33) undergoing adjuvant radiation with or without chemotherapy. The six-minute walk, thirty-second sit-to-stand, and timed "Up & Go" assessments were used to describe baseline physical functioning. Perceived quality of life from the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30) version 3.0 was used to quantify the quality of life.

Results

Mean distance walked in the six-minute walk test was 416.2 m (SD 137.6 m) with a mean of 12.2 stands (SD 3.4 stands) achieved during the thirty-second sit-to-stand. Median time to complete the timed "Up & Go" assessment was 7 s (interquartile range: 3 s). One-sample t tests suggest walking distance and chair stands were significantly lower than cutoff criterions to maintain independent living, t(32) = -5.96, P < .001, bias-corrected accelerated 95% CI [370.7-460.4], and t(32) = -4.60, P < .01, bias-corrected accelerated 95% CI [11.0-13.4], respectively. Wilcoxon signed-rank test identified significantly shorter median time taken to complete the timed "Up & Go" test compared to the cutoff criterion (z = -4.43, n = 33, P < .01).

Conclusion

This study suggests glioma patient's aerobic endurance and lower limb strength are below criterion cutoffs recommended to maintain independent living. Timed "Up & Go" scores did not exceed the criterion cutoff, indicating respectable levels of mobility.

Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab for patients with previously treated biliary tract cancers in the multicohort phase II LEAP-005 study

321

Background: Second-line treatment options for patients with biliary tract cancers (BTC) are limited. Lenvatinib, an anti-angiogenic multikinase inhibitor, in combination with the programmed death-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor pembrolizumab, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with a manageable safety profile in patients with select advanced solid tumors. LEAP-005 (NCT03797326) is evaluating the efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors; here we present results from the BTC cohort of LEAP-005. Methods: In this nonrandomized, open-label, phase II study, eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically documented advanced (metastatic and/or unresectable) BTC with disease progression after 1 prior line of therapy, measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS of 0‒1, and tissue sample evaluable for PD-L1 expression. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles (approximately 2 years) or until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment with lenvatinib could continue beyond 2 years in patients experiencing clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were ORR (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and safety. Secondary endpoints were the disease control rate (DCR; comprising CR, PR, and SD), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W from treatment initiation for 54 weeks, then Q12W to week 102, and Q24W thereafter. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the BTC cohort (ECOG PS 1, 55%; 84% ex-US). As of April 10, 2020, median time from first dose to data cutoff (DCO) was 9.5 months (range, 3.1‒11.9), with 16 patients on treatment at DCO. There were 3 (10%) PRs and 18 (58%) SDs. ORR was 10% (95% CI, 2‒26), and DCR was 68% (95% CI, 49‒83). Median DOR was 5.3 months (range, 2.1+ to 6.2). Median PFS was 6.1 months (95% CI, 2.1‒6.4). Median OS was 8.6 months (95% CI, 5.6 to NR). Treatment-related AEs occurred in 30 patients (97%), including 15 (48%) who had grade 3‒4 AEs; there were no treatment-related deaths. 2 (6%) discontinued treatment due to treatment-related AEs (myocarditis, pyrexia; n = 1 each). The most frequent treatment-related AEs were hypertension (42%), dysphonia (39%), diarrhea (32%), fatigue (32%), and nausea (32%). 14 patients (45%) had immune-mediated AEs and 1 patient (3%) had an infusion-related reaction. Conclusions: Lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated encouraging efficacy and manageable toxicity in patients with advanced BTC who had received 1 line of prior therapy. Based on these data, enrollment in the BTC cohort has been expanded to 100 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03797326.

LEAP-005: A phase II multicohort study of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated selected solid tumors—Results from the gastric cancer cohort

230

Background: Lenvatinib, an anti-angiogenic multiple receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with the anti‒PD-1 antibody pembrolizumab, has demonstrated promising antitumor activity with manageable safety in the first- or second-line in a phase 2 trial of patients with advanced gastric cancer. LEAP-005 (NCT03797326) is a phase 2, multicohort, nonrandomized, open-label study evaluating efficacy and safety of lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab in patients with previously treated advanced solid tumors; here, we present findings from the gastric cancer cohort of LEAP-005. Methods: Eligible patients were aged ≥18 years with histologically or cytologically confirmed metastatic and/or unresectable gastric cancer, received at least 2 prior lines of therapy, had measurable disease per RECIST v1.1, ECOG PS of 0‒1, and provided a tissue sample evaluable for PD-L1 expression. Patients received lenvatinib 20 mg once daily plus pembrolizumab 200 mg Q3W for up to 35 cycles of pembrolizumab (approximately 2 years) or until confirmed disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Treatment with lenvatinib could continue beyond 2 years in patients experiencing clinical benefit. Primary endpoints were ORR (per RECIST v1.1 by blinded independent central review) and safety. Secondary endpoints included disease control rate (DCR; comprising CR, PR, and SD), duration of response (DOR), PFS, and OS. Tumor imaging was performed Q9W from treatment initiation for 54 weeks, then Q12W to week 102, and Q24W thereafter. Results: 31 patients were enrolled in the gastric cancer cohort; 87% were male, 58% were aged < 65 years, and 71% had PD-L1 combined positive score (CPS) ≥1. Median time from first dose to data cutoff (April 10, 2020) was 7.0 months (range, 1.9‒11.9); 19 patients (61%) had discontinued treatment. ORR was 10% (95% CI, 2‒26); 1 patient had CR (3%), and 2 had a PR (6%). 12 patients (39%) had SD. Median DOR was not reached (range, 2.1+ to 2.3+ months). DCR was 48% (95% CI, 30‒67). Median PFS was 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.8‒4.2). Median OS was 5.9 months (95% CI, 2.6‒8.7). 28 patients (90%) had treatment-related AEs, including 13 patients (42%) with grade 3‒5 AEs. 1 patient had a treatment-related AE that led to death (hemorrhage). 8 patients (26%) had immune-mediated AEs: hypothyroidism (n = 5), hyperthyroidism (n = 2), and pneumonitis (n = 1). There were no infusion-related reactions. Conclusions: In patients with advanced gastric cancer who received 2 prior lines of therapy, lenvatinib plus pembrolizumab demonstrated promising antitumor activity and a manageable safety profile. Based on these data, enrollment in the gastric cancer cohort has been expanded to 100 patients. Clinical trial information: NCT03797326.

QOLP-23. PHASE II RANDOMISED PLACEBO-CONTROLLED DOUBLE-BLIND STUDY OF ACETAZOLAMIDE VERSUS PLACEBO FOR CEREBRAL OEDEMA IN RECURRENT AND/OR PROGRESSIVE HIGH-GRADE GLIOMA REQUIRING TREATMENT WITH DEXAMETHASONE

INTRODUCTION

Symptoms of raised intracranial pressure (ICP) in recurrent or progressive high-grade glioma (HGG) generally require corticosteroid treatment, often causing toxicity with variable effects on reversing ICP symptoms. Acetazolamide reduces ICP in other clinical settings including case series in glioma.

AIM

To explore whether addition of oral acetazolamide enables safe dexamethasone dose reduction in management of raised ICP in recurrent and/or progressive HGG.

METHODS

Participants had recurrent, progressive and/or persistent residual HGG requiring recommencement of dexamethasone, dose increase or dexamethasone dependency; prior/current bevacizumab was an exclusion. Eligible participants were randomised 1:1 to acetazolamide 250mg twice daily or placebo for 8 weeks. Standardised protocols were used for dexamethasone dose changes in both arms, with planned dose decrease from day 5 once ICP symptoms were stable. The primary endpoint was a composite of dexamethasone dose reduction and stability of performance status. Secondary endpoints included toxicity and feasibility (accrual and compliance).

RESULTS

Thirty participants of a planned sample of 84 were enrolled (mean age 58 y (32-89)) from 7 Australian sites. The mean baseline dexamethasone dose was 6.2mg (4-16mg). Mean duration on treatment was 38 days (4-57) in placebo group and 31 days (3-60) in acetazolamide group, with 9 participants (30%) completing all study treatment (6 placebo, 3 acetazolamide). Study withdrawal was due to adverse events (n=6 (1 placebo, 5 acetazolamide)) and disease progression (n=6 (3 per arm)). Four participants (13%) (2 per arm) were stable responders meeting the primary endpoint criteria (≥50% corticosteroid dose reduction from baseline by 28 days maintained for 7 days, and no deterioration in performance status). Ten participants experienced a total of 13 serious adverse events (acetazolamide arm: 5 participants (33%), 6 events, 2 related).

DISCUSSION

The addition of acetazolamide did not facilitate dexamethasone reduction. The study closed early due to poor accrual and increasing availability of bevacizumab.

Emotional impact of COVID-19 preparations on metro and regional cancer workforces in Queensland Australia: "We are all in this together"

44

Background: Australia has achieved a “flattening of the curve” with a sustained COVID-19 roadmap to recovery in place. We explored the emotional impact of COVID-19 on our cancer workforce, during the preparation phase of the pandemic. Methods: We developed and pilot-tested an online survey to capture the emotional impact on cancer care staff during the COVID-19 health system response. Two large cancer centres were identified for study sample, one metropolitan and one regional, in Queensland, Australia. All cancer care staff with patient-facing roles were invited via all-staff email to participate on a weekly basis, uniquely also including ancillary and administrative workers. The final survey questionnaire included qualitative domains with open text responses for reflections on difficult decisions and subsequent emotional impacts. At the same time, a prospective diary of organizational developments was independently maintained by two investigators in order to contextualize changing survey responses over time. Qualitative data analyses by four investigators included independent, multiple cross-coding, memos, dataset review and member-checking to ensure methodological rigour. Data were synthesised into key themes utilising the Framework Method (Gale, 2013). Results: 117 metropolitan and 59 regional staff were surveyed over a 6-week period. Participants were medical, nursing, allied health, administrative and ancillary staff, working across inpatient and outpatient oncology services. Four key themes were emergent across the trajectory of the COVID preparation phase; ‘Strategies for protection’ (self-isolation, using PPE, protecting patients, families and each other), ‘Navigating rules and keeping up’ (compliance, exceptions, conflict and complex decision fatigue), ‘Tempered optimism’ (this is grief, strategies for coping, pride in one’s place), and ‘Framing the new normal’ (using new technology, second wave, uncertainty). At different time points, one theme dominated more than others. Conclusions: Despite rapid adaptations to system changes, staff responses highlight that it was their sense of connectedness that had the greatest influence on their reflections during the COVID-19 pandemic, but also underpinned the humanistic aspects of their responses. Staff perceptions of feeling supported and prepared, permeated through the duration of the survey. Results from the recovery phase are awaited.

Psychosocial impacts of COVID-19 on oncology workforces: Metro versus regional Australia

111

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic poses psychosocial challenges to the oncology workforce. We postulate that these impacts may affect the entire patient-facing workforce. Whether distress is different in varying settings (metro vs regional hospitals) is unknown. Methods: Cancer Care staff were approached via all-staff email for a weekly online survey administered at two hospital sites, Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital (RBWH) (metro) and Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health System (SCHHS) (regional). Surveys included Likert-scale items exploring perceptions of departmental preparation, COVID-19 related query burden and staff well-being, and distress thermometer derived from NCCN. Mean and 95% confidence interval were calculated, with non-parametric t-tests adjusted for multiple comparisons (Holm-Sidak); significance was deemed p < 0.05. Results: 117 participants at RBWH and 59 at SCHHS consented. The survey opened April 3, 2020. Data is presented for the initial 6 weeks (COVID-19 preparation phase). Highest survey response was noted in week 1 (87%) and lowest at week 6 (36%). 65% unique responses were from RBWH. 60% participants worked in an outpatient setting, while 37% had inpatient care role. The remainder worked in either community-based or mixed settings. Significant heterogeneity was detected between sites (RBWH vs SCHHS) for some occupational roles: RBWH had more representation of administrative (19% vs 8%, p < 0.001) and ancillary staff (2% vs 0%, p = 0.005) but SCHHS had more allied health (28% vs 17%, p = 0.005). Nursing and medical staff proportions at SCHHS and RBWH were similar (50% vs 45%, and 14% vs 18% respectively). Higher levels of distress were noted early; mean (95% CI) distress thermometer result (0-10) during week 1 was 4.7 (4.3-5.2) at RBWH and 4.9 (4.2-5.5) at SCHHS. Mean distress scores significantly reduced over time: correlative scores during week 6 were 3.2 (2.3-4.1) at RBWH and 2.5 (1.6-3.4) at SCHHS. Distress levels comparing RBWH with SCHHS were similar (p = 0.22-0.76). No significant difference was noted in staff perception of self-support comparing RBWH with SCHHS, and over 80% responders felt well-supported at work most, or all of the time. Concurrently, participants perceived that the Cancer Care department of their site was either “well” or “very well” prepared for COVID-19 over 85% of the time, with no difference between sites. Conclusions: High perceptions of support and preparedness were evident, with no regional difference. Distress scores reduced over time during the COVID-19 preparation phase, in the context of low COVID-19 rates.

The (Co)Production of Difference in the Care of Patients With Cancer From Migrant Backgrounds

An extensive body of scholarship focuses on cultural diversity in health care, and this has resulted in a plethora of strategies to "manage" cultural difference. This work has often been patient-oriented (i.e., focused on the differences of the person being cared for), rather than relational in character. In this study, we aimed to explore how the difference was relational and coproduced in the accounts of cancer care professionals and patients with cancer who were from migrant backgrounds. Drawing on eight focus groups with 57 cancer care professionals and one-on-one interviews with 43 cancer patients from migrant backgrounds, we explore social relations, including intrusion and feelings of discomfort, moral logics of rights and obligation, and the practice of defaulting to difference. We argue, on the basis of these accounts, for the importance of approaching difference as relational and that this could lead to a more reflexive means for overcoming "differences" in therapeutic settings.

COVID-19 and the cancer care workforce: From doctors to ancillary staff

The COVID-19 pandemic poses daily challenges to the entire oncology workforce. Staff members must absorb multiple executive briefings, adapt to escalating scenario modelling, and seamlessly execute ever-changing operational modes in real-time. The unique threat of looming re-deployment and rationing care add to the uncertainty. We highlight the need for qualitative research to understand the psychosocial impact of these challenges. We posit that the perspective of all team members should be explored: from doctors to ancillary staff.

Retrospective analysis of hospital admissions due to immune checkpoint inhibitor-induced immune-related adverse events (irAE)

AIM

Hospital admissions secondary to immune-related adverse events (irAE) arising from immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) are likely to increase with increasing use of this class of drug. We sought to determine the characteristics and outcomes of hospital admissions due to irAE.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of patients treated with ICI at two tertiary hospitals in Queensland (Australia) was performed. Patients who received at least one dose of ICI for a nonhaematological malignancy between the 1st January 2016 and 1st January 2017 were included. All subsequent hospital admissions were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 140 patients were included, with the most common malignancies being non-small-cell-cell lung cancer (41%) and melanoma (18%), and most patients received anti-PD1 treatment (78%). A sum of 76 patients accounted for 116 admissions. Comparing admissions due to irAE and non-irAE, those admitted for irAE had a significantly longer duration on ICI prior to admission (173 vs 105 days, P = 0.04) but durations of admissions were similar (9.0 vs 8.5 days, P = 0.85). Fifteen patients (11% overall cohort) accounted for 18 admissions attributable to 16 separate irAE. irAE was not considered as a differential diagnosis on admission in 7 patients (38%). In those patients, commencement of corticosteroids was delayed (1.5 days, P = 0.01) but this did not translate into adverse outcomes such as prolonged admissions, prolonged steroid use or long-term complications. All patients with irAE were managed with high-dose corticosteroids. One death resulted from irAE (pneumonitis).

CONCLUSIONS

A sum of 11% patients receiving ICI required hospital admission for irAE. The relatively high rate of irAE as a missed differential diagnosis on admission suggests a need for improved cross-discipline awareness, education, and institutional management guidelines.

Reciprocity, Autonomy, and Vulnerability in Men's Experiences of Informal Cancer Care

Men are increasingly participating, and acknowledging their roles, as informal carers. Yet, there has been comparatively little exploration of their experiences therein, especially within the context of cancer care. Here, drawing on semi-structured qualitative interviews with 16 Australian male carers for a relative with cancer, and using constructivist grounded theory, we explore their experiences of informal caring. Our analysis highlights a series of tensions, including the following: the meanings and practicalities of care provision including notions of reciprocity, duty, autonomy, and interdependence; the discomforts of dependency and vulnerability; and the complicated moralities that inflect "caring well." Given the shifting dynamics around informal care, we argue for increased attention to the affective tensions that arise at the nexus of moralities and masculinities in informal caring relations, especially as they are articulated in the context of illness, affliction, and dependency.

Why is optimisation of antimicrobial use difficult at the end of life?

The antibiotic optimisation imperative is now ubiquitous, with national policy frameworks in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries incorporating the requirement for antimicrobial stewardship within healthcare services. Yet in practice, the optimisation agenda often raises complex ethical- and practice-based dilemmas. Antibiotic use at the end of life is multidimensional. It includes balancing complex issues, such as accuracy of prognostic estimates, benevolence to the individual versus the broader public health, personalised value judgement of time and quality of life and the right to treatment versus the right to die. It also occurs in an emotional context where the clinician and patient (and their family) collectively confront mortality. This provides a scenario where amplification of the already strong social and behavioural forces that drive overuse of antibiotics in many other clinical settings may occur. It therefore offers an important case for illustrating how antibiotic optimisation may be limited by social, value-based and ethical dilemmas.