Salvage prostatic bed radiotherapy (PBRT) is a standard in case of biochemical recurrence following radical prostatectomy (RP) for prostate cancer (PC). The management of isolated prostatic bed recurrence following RP and PBRT is debated. Reirradiation within stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) guided by metabolic imaging could be a relevant option in this case. In parallel, metformin, an economically viable and well-tolerated oral antidiabetic agent, has demonstrated its radiosensitising properties. This phase I/II clinical trial aims to (i) determine the optimal dose for SBRT reirradiation, (ii) conduct safety assessments and (iii) evaluate the efficacy of the metformin and SBRT combination.

We conducted a prospective, non-randomised, open-label, multicentre, dose escalation, phase I/II study involving a minimum of 44 patients. Eligible patients must have biochemical recurrence (Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA)>0.2 ng/mL and confirmed ascending trend in at least two successive assays), occurring at least 2 years after PBRT and prior RP for PC (including low, intermediate and high risk with a single risk factor) and no Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade>=2 toxicity following PBRT. The recurrence should be visible on MRI and/or Positron Emission Tomography (PET) Choline and/or PET PSMA, without evidence of pelvic lymph node recurrence or metastatic disease. The primary objective of phase I is to determine the optimal SBRT dose (5x6, 6x6, or 5x5 Gy) based on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT). The dose will be chosen using a time-to-event continual reassessment method based on DLT, defined as CTCAE grade ≥3 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity, or any other grade 4 adverse event. The primary outcome of the phase II is to estimate the efficacy of SBRT in combination with metformin in terms of biological relapse-free survival (bRFS) rate at 3 years. Secondary outcomes include 5-year bRFS rate, early/late genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicities, quality of life, biochemical response rate, clinical progression-free survival and overall survival (OS).

Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethics committee "SUD EST III Bron" Ref.CPP 2020-042B (20.05.07.72735) and the National Agency for the Safety of Medicines (ANSM) Ref. ANSM MEDAECNAT-2020-05-00009. The ethics approval obtained covers all the sites that will take part in this study. The study’s findings will be disseminated through publications and conference presentations.

NCT04536805, Registration Date: 2020-08-17

Pain accounts for approximately 80% of emergency department admissions. While intravenous morphine titration is commonly used for severe pain, non-invasive alternatives that bypass intravenous access are needed. Nebulised fentanyl, combined with pupillometry for objective monitoring of opioid impregnation, may offer a rapid and safe alternative for pain management.

This phase I, open-label, randomised, exploratory, crossover, single-centre prospective controlled trial will employ pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK–PD) modelling to assess the variability in bioavailability of nebulised fentanyl administered via intranasal route versus facial aerosol. 20 healthy volunteers will receive three repeated administrations of fentanyl over two visits. At each visit, blood samples (n=11) will be collected for fentanyl quantification by liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, and pupillary unrest in ambient light (PUAL) measurements (n=9) will be recorded. The resulting data will be analysed using Monolix 2024R1 to model PK–PD relationships, perform Monte Carlo simulations and determine the optimal dosing and timing required to achieve a reduction of more than 30% in PUAL, while also evaluating safety, comfort and tolerance.

The study has been approved by the Ethic Committee Île-de-France VII (approval reference number: 000216, February 2024) and will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and appropriate data-sharing platforms to support further research and clinical application.

This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT06281951).

To describe primary care providers’ (PCPs) experience and satisfaction with receiving risk communication documents on their patient’s breast cancer (BC) risk assessment and proposed screening action plan.

Descriptive cross-sectional study.

A survey was distributed to all 763 PCPs linked to 1642 women participating in the Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I) research project in Quebec, approximately 1–4 months after the delivery of the risk communication documents. The recruitment phase took place from July 2021 to July 2022.

PCPs.

Descriptive analyses were conducted to report participants’ experiences and satisfaction with receiving risk communication. Responses to two open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis.

A total of 168 PCPs answered the survey, from which 73% reported being women and 74% having more than 15 years of practice. Only 38% were familiar with the risk-based BC screening approach prior to receiving their patient risk category. A majority (86%) agreed with the screening approach and would recommend it to their patients if implemented at the population level. A majority of PCPs also reported understanding the information provided (92%) and expressed agreement with the proposed BC screening action plan (89%). Some PCPs recommended simplifying the materials, acknowledging the potential increase in workload and emphasising the need for careful planning of professional training efforts.

PCPs expressed positive attitudes towards a risk-based BC screening approach and were generally satisfied with the information provided. This study suggests that, if introduced in Canada in a manner similar to the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, risk-based BC screening would likely be supported by most PCPs. However, they emphasised the importance of addressing concerns such as professional training and the potential impact on workload if the approach were to be implemented at the population level. Future qualitative studies are needed to further explore the training needs of PCPs and to develop strategies for integrating this approach with the high workloads faced by PCPs.