Photobiomodulation in the management of oral mucositis for adult head and neck cancer patients receiving irradiation: the LiTEFORM RCT.

BackgroundOral mucositis is a debilitating and painful complication of head and neck cancer irradiation that is characterised by inflammation of the mucous membranes, erythema and ulceration. Oral mucositis affects 6000 head and neck cancer patients per year in England and Wales. Current treatments have not proven to be effective. International studies suggest that low-level laser therapy may be an effective treatment.ObjectivesTo assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in the management of oral mucositis in head and neck cancer irradiation. To identify barriers to and facilitators of implementing low-level laser therapy in routine care.DesignPlacebo-controlled, individually randomised, multicentre Phase III superiority trial, with an internal pilot and health economic and qualitative process evaluations. The participants, outcome assessors and therapists were blinded.SettingNine NHS head and neck cancer sites in England and Wales.ParticipantsA total of 87 out of 380 participants were recruited who were aged ≥ 18 years and were undergoing head and neck cancer irradiation with ≥ 60 Gy.InterventionRandom allocation (1 : 1 ratio) to either low-level laser therapy or sham low-level laser therapy three times per week for the duration of irradiation. The diode laser had the following specifications: wavelength 660 nm, power output 75 mW, beam area 1.5 cm2, irradiance 50 mW/cm2, exposure time 60 seconds and fluence 3 J/cm2. There were 20-30 spots per session. Sham low-level laser therapy was delivered in an identical manner.Main outcome measureThe mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks following the start of irradiation. Higher scores indicate a worse outcome.ResultsA total of 231 patients were screened and, of these, 87 were randomised (low-level laser therapy arm, n = 44; sham arm, n = 43). The mean age was 59.4 years (standard deviation 8.8 years) and 69 participants (79%) were male. The mean Oral Mucositis Weekly Questionnaire-Head and Neck Cancer score at 6 weeks was 33.2 (standard deviation 10) in the low-level laser therapy arm and 27.4 (standard deviation 13.8) in the sham arm.LimitationsThe trial lacked statistical power because it did not meet the recruitment target. Staff and patients willingly participated in the trial and worked hard to make the LiTEFORM trial succeed. However, the task of introducing, embedding and sustaining new low-level laser therapy services into a complex care pathway proved challenging. Sites could deliver low-level laser therapy to only a small number of patients at a time. The administration of low-level laser therapy was viewed as straightforward, but also time-consuming and sometimes uncomfortable for both patients and staff, particularly those staff who were not used to working in a patient's mouth.ConclusionsThis trial had a robust design but lacked power to be definitive. Low-level laser therapy is relatively inexpensive. In contrast with previous trials, some patients found low-level laser therapy sessions to be difficult. The duration of low-level laser therapy sessions is, therefore, an important consideration. Clinicians experienced in oral cavity work most readily adapt to delivering low-level laser therapy, although other allied health professionals can be trained. Blinding the clinicians delivering low-level laser therapy is feasible. There are important human resource, real estate and logistical considerations for those setting up low-level laser therapy services.Future workFurther well-designed randomised controlled trials investigating low-level laser therapy in head and neck cancer irradiation are needed, with similar powered recruitment targets but addressing the recruitment challenges and logistical findings from this research.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN14224600.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Beliefs About Medication and Uptake of Preventive Therapy in Women at Increased Risk of Breast Cancer: Results From a Multicenter Prospective Study

Introduction Uptake of preventive therapies for breast cancer is low. We examined whether women at increased risk of breast cancer can be categorized into groups with similar medication beliefs, and whether belief group membership was prospectively associated with uptake of preventive therapy. Patients and Methods Women (n = 732) attending an appointment to discuss breast cancer risk were approached; 408 (55.7%) completed the Beliefs About Medicines and the Perceived Sensitivity to Medicines questionnaires. Uptake of tamoxifen at 3 months was reported in 258 (63.2%). The optimal number of belief groups were identified using latent profile analysis. Results Uptake of tamoxifen was 14.7% (38/258). One in 5 women (19.4%; 78/402) reported a strong need for tamoxifen. The model fit statistics supported a 2-group model. Both groups held weak beliefs about their need for tamoxifen for current and future health. Group 2 (38%; 154/406 of the sample) reported stronger concerns about tamoxifen and medicines in general, and stronger perceived sensitivity to the negative effects of medicines compared with group 1 (62%; 252/406). Women with low necessity and lower concerns (group 1) were more likely to initiate tamoxifen (18.3%; 33/180) than those with low necessity and higher concerns (group 2) (6.4%; 5/78). After adjusting for demographic and clinical factors, the odds ratio was 3.37 (95% confidence interval, 1.08-10.51; P = .036). Conclusion Uptake of breast cancer preventive therapy was low. A subgroup of women reported low need for preventive therapy and strong medication concerns. These women were less likely to initiate tamoxifen. Medication beliefs are targets for supporting informed decision-making

PemBla: A Phase 1 study of intravesical pembrolizumab in recurrent non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer

Abstract Objectives This study aimed to investigate the anti‐PD‐1 inhibitor pembrolizumab as a potential agent for use in non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC) by conducting a Phase 1 safety run‐in study to assess the safety and tolerability of intravesical pembrolizumab after transurethral resection of the bladder tumour (TURBT). Patients and methods Eligible patients had recurrent NMIBC for which adjuvant treatment post TURBT was a reasonable treatment option, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) 0–1 and adequate end‐organ function. Pembrolizumab was administered by intravesical instillation once weekly for a total of six doses. Intra‐patient dose escalation was performed in three paired patient cohorts with doses starting at 50 mg and increasing through 100 mg to a maximum of 200 mg. Adverse events (AEs) were assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) v4.03 with dose limiting toxicity (DLT) defined as a clinically significant, drug‐related, Grade 4 haematological or Grade 3 or higher non‐haematological toxicity occurring within 7 days of administration of the first treatment at a given dose for that patient. Results Six patients were treated with no DLTs seen during dose escalation. Drug‐related AEs were of low grade and included dysuria and fatigue. All patients completed six doses of treatment as planned. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assays did not detect any pembrolizumab in the serum following repeated intravesical administration, and no changes in peripheral immune cell populations were observed. Conclusions Administration of intravesical pembrolizumab was well tolerated and did not raise any safety concerns in patients with NMIBC following TURBT. There was no evidence of systemic absorption or systemic immune effects following intravesical administration. Further studies are required to assess whether intravesical administration has anti‐tumour activity