Search

In 2023, the Common Sense Oncology (CSO) movement was launched with the goal of recalibrating cancer care to focus on outcomes that matter to patients. We extend the three CSO pillars – evidence generation, interpretation and communication – to radiation oncology and advocate for better evidence demonstrating the value of our modality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Radiotherapy innovation consists of a broad range of intervention types. • Appropriate evidence should be generated considering each type of innovation. • Innovations providing real benefit to patients, at fair prices, should be endorsed. • Current oncology value tools insufficiently address radiotherapy-relevant outcomes. • The HERO-VBHC project aims to develop a value framework dedicated to radiotherapy. Radiotherapy interventions are rapidly evolving and improving, holding promise for better patient outcomes, yet at the possible detriment of higher societal costs. The ESTRO-HERO value-based radiotherapy project aims to develop a framework defining and assessing the value of radiotherapy innovations, to support clinical implementation and equitable access, within a sustainable healthcare system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• European Cancer Organisation essential requirements for quality cancer care (ERQCC) are position papers on delivering high-quality care. • Each paper focuses on a cancer type, in this case lung cancer. • Lung cancer is a great societal burden and is challenging to treat. • High-quality care can only be a carried out in specialised units or centres. • The essential, multidisciplinary details for such centres are set out by the European Cancer Organisation expert group. European Cancer Organisation Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) are written by experts representing all disciplines involved in cancer care in Europe. They give patients, health professionals, managers and policymakers a guide to essential care throughout the patient journey. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality and has a wide variation in treatment and outcomes in Europe. It is a major healthcare burden and has complex diagnosis and treatment challenges. Care must only be carried out in lung cancer units or centres that have a core multidisciplinary team (MDT) and an extended team of health professionals detailed here. Such units are far from universal in European countries. To meet European aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this paper, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) has the potential to prolong survival. • Definitions and reporting of oligometastatic disease (OMD) are heterogeneous. • OMD is typically based on the imaging-detected number of metastases, but definitions in the literature are inconsistent and warrant further study. No formal clinical or molecular biomarkers currently exist to aid classification as OMD. • Currently no clinical or molecular biomarkers exist to aid classification of OMD. • Advanced technologies are mandatory to guarantee safe MDRT and improve outcome. • Consensus for extra-cranial OMD defines maximum 5 metastatic lesions off-protocol. Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence. A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature. Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed. While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1–5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reimbursement is a key factor in defining which resources are made available to ensure quality, efficiency, availability, and access to specific health-care interventions. This Policy Review assesses publicly funded radiotherapy reimbursement systems in Europe. We did a survey of the national societies of radiation oncology in Europe, focusing on the general features and global structure of the reimbursement system, the coverage scope, and level for typical indications. The annual expenditure covering radiotherapy in each country was also collected. Most countries have a predominantly budgetary-based system. Variability was the major finding, both in the components of the treatment considered for reimbursement, and in the fees paid for specific treatment techniques, fractionations, and indications. Annual expenses for radiotherapy, including capital investment, available in 12 countries, represented between 4·3% and 12·3% (average 7·8%) of the cancer care budget. Although an essential pillar in multidisciplinary oncology, radiotherapy is an inexpensive modality with a modest contribution to total cancer care costs. Scientific societies and policy makers across Europe need to discuss new strategies for reimbursement, combining flexibility with incentives to improve productivity and quality, allowing radiation oncology services to follow evolving evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Oligometastatic disease has been proposed as an intermediate state between localised and systemically metastasised disease. In the absence of randomised phase 3 trials, early clinical studies show improved survival when radical local therapy is added to standard systemic therapy for oligometastatic disease. However, since no biomarker for the identification of patients with true oligometastatic disease is clinically available, the diagnosis of oligometastatic disease is based solely on imaging findings. A small number of metastases on imaging could represent different clinical scenarios, which are associated with different prognoses and might require different treatment strategies. 20 international experts including 19 members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer OligoCare project developed a comprehensive system for characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease. We first did a systematic review of the literature to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria of prospective interventional oligometastatic disease clinical trials. Next, we used a Delphi consensus process to select a total of 17 oligometastatic disease characterisation factors that should be assessed in all patients treated with radical local therapy for oligometastatic disease, both within and outside of clinical trials. Using a second round of the Delphi method, we established a decision tree for oligometastatic disease classification together with a nomenclature. We agreed oligometastatic disease as the overall umbrella term. A history of polymetastatic disease before diagnosis of oligometastatic disease was used as the criterion to differentiate between induced oligometastatic disease (previous history of polymetastatic disease) and genuine oligometastatic disease (no history of polymetastatic disease). We further subclassified genuine oligometastatic disease into repeat oligometastatic disease (previous history of oligometastatic disease) and de-novo oligometastatic disease (first time diagnosis of oligometastatic disease). In de-novo oligometastatic disease, we differentiated between synchronous and metachronous oligometastatic disease. We did a final subclassification into oligorecurrence, oligoprogression, and oligopersistence, considering whether oligometastatic disease is diagnosed during a treatment-free interval or during active systemic therapy and whether or not an oligometastatic lesion is progressing on current imaging. This oligometastatic disease classification and nomenclature needs to be prospectively evaluated by the OligoCare study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a commentary on Value-based health care. Topics discussed include aspects regarding utility and monetary exchange are crucial; conditions of potential benefits or losses, which may be relevant for patients in non-curative situations; and value of a treatment is based on scientific value judgments, including a clinical and an economic evaluation.

• Radiation Oncology has seen considerable change since ESTRO's vision for 2020. • Defining a new vision statement for 2030 and new strategic priorities is essential to prepare the Society for the future. • ESTRO will further focus on translating science and evidence into practice, endorsing professional development in the discipline, strengthening the Society and embracing an active policy-role. Radiation oncology has seen considerable change since ESTRO adopted its previous vision statement, less than 10 years ago. The Society has now formulated a new vision for 2030, which remains dedicated to its mission, whilst adapting to evolving contexts and the transforming landscape. Aligning with the new vision, ESTRO has developed strategic priorities for the coming years. This document, written on behalf of the Board and its leadership, describes ESTRO's strategic focus on translating science and evidence into practice, supporting professional development in the discipline, further strengthening the Society and on embracing an active policy-role. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ESTRO surveyed European radiation oncology department heads to evaluate the impact of COVID-19. Telemedicine was used in 78% of the departments, and 60% reported a decline in patient volume. Use of protective measures was implemented on a large scale, but shortages of personal protective equipment were present in more than half of the departments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In the light of scarce resources to be allocated for cancer care and a steady stream of costly innovations in all modalities applied to treat cancer, particle therapy needs to demonstrate its cost-utility balance to allow its positioning in the context of competing modalities. In the continuous evolving particle therapy landscape, the timely availability of appropriate economic data is crucial. Methods Economic data collection and compilation for particle therapy needs to follow health economic standards. Costing related analyses particularly need attention as clinical outcome data follow international standards to provide comparability. Among others, perspective, time horizons and cost categories are critical. Results In this report from the “Health Economics Work Package” of the European Particle Therapy Network, the approaches commonly applied in health economic assessments are described and tailored to the specific needs of particle therapy. Data collection for cost calculation, economic evaluation and budget impact analysis are discussed. Conclusion The presented data are intended to serve as a guidance for economic data collection, bearing in mind that in each specific case, the heterogeneous requirements of national health systems will need to be considered and assessments adapted accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Introduction A series of health economic evaluations (HEE) has analysed the efficiency of new fractionation schedules and techniques for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. This overview assembles the available evidence and evaluates to what extent HEE-results can be compared. Methods Based on a systematic literature review of HEEs from 1/1/2000 to 30/10/2016, all cost comparison (CC) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) comparing different adjuvant breast radiotherapy approaches were analysed. Costs were extracted and converted to Euro 2016 and costs per QALY were summarized in cost-effectiveness planes. Results Twenty-four publications are withheld, comparing different fractionation schedules and/or irradiation techniques or evaluating the value of adding radiotherapy. Normofractionation and intensity-modulated, interstitial or intraluminal techniques are important cost-drivers. Highest reimbursements are observed in the US, but may overestimate the real cost. Hypofractionation is cost-effective compared to normofractionation, the results of partial breast irradiation are less unequivocal. Intra-operative and external beam approaches seem the most cost-effective for favourable risk groups, but whole breast irradiation is superior in terms of health effect and omission of radiotherapy in terms of costs. Conclusion Hypofractionation may be considered the most relevant comparator for new strategies in adjuvant breast radiotherapy, with omission of radiotherapy as an interesting alternative in the very favourable subcategories, especially for partial breast techniques. Although comparison of CC and CEA is hampered by the variability in clinical and economic settings, HEE-based evidence can guide decision-making to tailor-made strategies, allocating the optimal treatment in terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency to the right indication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers information on the increased prevalence of cancer around the globe and the need to improve access to innovative radiotherapy for treatment. Topics discussed include new treatment techniques such as adaptive or stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), the economic aspects of radiotherapy, and the need to use randomized clinical trials (RCT) for evidence generation.

Purpose To investigate, in a prospective phase 1 to 2 trial, the safety and feasibility of delivering external beam radiation therapy in 5 fractions to the breast or thoracic wall, including boost and/or lymph nodes if needed, to women aged ≥65 years with breast cancer. Methods and Materials Ninety-five patients aged ≥65 years, referred for adjuvant radiation therapy, were treated in 5 fractions over 12 days with a total dose of 28.5 Gy/5.7 Gy to the breast or thoracic wall and, if indicated, 27 Gy/5.4 Gy to the lymph node regions and 32.5 Gy/6.5 Gy to 34.5 Gy/6.9 Gy to the tumor bed. The primary endpoint was clinically relevant dermatitis (grade ≥2). Results Mean follow-up time was 5.6 months, and mean age was 73.6 years. Clinically relevant dermatitis was observed in 11.6% of patients and only occurred in breast irradiation with boost (17.5% grade 2-3 vs 0% in the no-boost group). Although doses were high, treatment delivery with intensity modulated radiation therapy was swift, except for complex treatments, including lymph nodes for which single-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy was needed to reduce beam-on time. Conclusion Accelerated radiation therapy in 5 fractions was technically feasible and resulted in low acute toxicity. Clinically relevant erythema was only observed in patients receiving a boost, but still at an acceptable rate. Although the follow-up is still short, the results on acute toxicity after accelerated radiation therapy were encouraging. A 5-fraction schedule is well tolerated in the elderly and may lower the threshold for radiation therapy in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The objective of this HERO study was to assess the number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy by 2025. Methods European cancer incidence data by tumor site and country for 2012 and 2025 was extracted from the GLOBOCAN database. The projection of the number of new cases took into account demographic factors (age and size of the population). Population based stages at diagnosis were taken from four European countries. Incidence and stage data were introduced in the Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) model. Results Among the different tumor sites, the highest expected relative increase by 2025 in treatment courses was prostate cancer (24%) while lymphoma (13%), head and neck (12%) and breast cancer (10%) were below the average. Based on the projected cancer distributions in 2025, a 16% expected increase in the number of radiotherapy treatment courses was estimated. This increase varied across European countries from less than 5% to more than 30%. Conclusion With the already existing disparity in radiotherapy resources in mind, the data provided here should act as a leverage point to raise awareness among European health policy makers of the need for investment in radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiotherapy costs are an often underestimated component of the economic assessment of new radiotherapy treatments and technologies. That the radiotherapy budget only consumes a finite part of the total cancer and healthcare budget does not relieve us from our responsibility to balance the extra costs to the additional benefits of new, more advanced, but typically also more expensive treatments we want to deliver. Yet, in contrast to what is the case for oncology drugs, literature evidence remains limited, as well for economic evaluations comparing new radiotherapy interventions as for cost calculation studies. Even more cumbersome, the available costing studies in the field of radiotherapy fail to accurately capture the real costs of our treatments due to the large variation in cost inputs, in scope of the analysis, in costing methodology. And this is not trivial. Accurate resource cost accounting lays the basis for the further steps in health technology assessment leading to radiotherapy investments and reimbursement, at the local, the national and the worldwide level. In the current paper we review some evidence from the existing costing literature and discuss how such data can be used to support reimbursement setting and investment cases for new radiotherapy equipment and infrastructure. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background.Planning radiation oncology equipment and staffing is necessary in public healthcare systems in Europe. Methods.Three different data inputs were considered: evidence-based indications for radiotherapy, the incidence of cancer, and the stage at diagnosis of each cancer type, both the latter using population-based data from cancer registries. The availability of these data and the implications for the estimation of the proportion of new cancer patients who would need radiotherapy treatment at least once during the course of the disease is reviewed. Results.Depending on the frequency of cancers and the stage at diagnosis, it has been estimated that between 47% and 53% of incident cases among European countries would require external beam radiotherapy. When the actual data of utilization is compared with the evidence-based target, only one country in Europe has achieved full coverage. Conclusion.It is argued that these should be considered the optimal proportions of cancer patients, but a more realistic policy target could be set at 80% or higher of the optimal proportion. This realistic target also takes into account the inherent uncertainties in the assessment of evidence, and other factors that influence clinical decision-making in cases of multi-morbidity or patient preferences. Other factors are associated with problems that should be dealt with in the framework of a cancer plan, such as accessibility, preference bias in physician evaluation of the indication or shortage of resources, and the impact of the reimbursement system. Finally, it is argued that a cancer plan is the framework for achieving policy targets in the appropriate coverage of the evidence-based indications for radiation oncology forecasts. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background and purpose The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated. Material and methods The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site. Results In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries. Conclusions The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) project has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The first milestone was to assess the availability of radiotherapy resources within Europe. This paper presents the personnel data collected in the ESTRO HERO database. Materials and methods An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy staffing (questionnaire items 47–60), analysed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis was conducted between February and July 2014, and is based on validated responses from 24 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO). Results A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. Averages and ranges for personnel numbers per million inhabitants are 12.8 (2.5–30.9) for radiation oncologists, 7.6 (0–19.7) for medical physicists, 3.5 (0–12.6) for dosimetrists, 26.6 (1.9–78) for RTTs and 14.8 (0.4–61.0) for radiotherapy nurses. The combined average for physicists and dosimetrists is 9.8 per million inhabitants and 36.9 for RTT and nurses. Radiation oncologists on average treat 208.9 courses per year (range: 99.9–348.8), physicists and dosimetrists conjointly treat 303.3 courses (range: 85–757.7) and RTT and nurses 76.8 (range: 25.7–156.8). In countries with higher GNI per capita, all personnel categories treat fewer courses per annum than in less affluent countries. This relationship is most evident for RTTs and nurses. Different clusters of countries can be distinguished on the basis of available personnel resources and socio-economic status. Conclusions The average personnel figures in Europe are now consistent with, or even more favourable than the QUARTS recommendations, probably reflecting a combination of better availability as such, in parallel with the current use of more complex treatments than a decade ago. A considerable variation in available personnel and delivered courses per year however persists among the highest and lowest staffing levels. This not only reflects the variation in cancer incidence and socio-economic determinants, but also the stage in technology adoption along with treatment complexity and the different professional roles and responsibilities within each country. Our data underpin the need for accurate prediction models and long-term education and training programmes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: New evidence based regimens and novel high precision technology have reinforced the important role of radiotherapy in the management of cancer. Current data estimate that more than 50% of all cancer patients would benefit from radiotherapy during the course of their disease. Within recent years, the radiotherapy community has become more than conscious of the ever-increasing necessity to come up with objective data to endorse the crucial role and position of radiation therapy within the rapidly changing global oncology landscape. In an era of ever expanding health care costs, proven safety and effectiveness is not sufficient anymore to obtain funding, objective data about cost and cost-effectiveness are nowadays additionally requested. It is in this context that ESTRO is launching the HERO-project (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology), with the overall aim to develop a knowledge base and a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. To accomplish these objectives, the HERO project will address needs, accessibility, cost and cost-effectiveness of radiotherapy. The results will raise the profile of radiotherapy in the European cancer management context and help countries prioritizing radiotherapy as a highly cost-effective treatment strategy. This article describes the different steps and aims within the HERO-project, starting from evidence on the role of radiotherapy within the global oncology landscape and highlighting weaknesses that may undermine this position. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To evaluate the potential for dose escalation with intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in positron emission tomography-based radiotherapy planning for locally advanced non–small-cell lung cancer (LA-NSCLC). Methods and Materials: For 35 LA-NSCLC patients, three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT plans were made to a prescription dose (PD) of 66 Gy in 2-Gy fractions. Dose escalation was performed toward the maximal PD using secondary endpoint constraints for the lung, spinal cord, and heart, with de-escalation according to defined esophageal tolerance. Dose calculation was performed using the Eclipse pencil beam algorithm, and all plans were recalculated using a collapsed cone algorithm. The normal tissue complication probabilities were calculated for the lung (Grade 2 pneumonitis) and esophagus (acute toxicity, grade 2 or greater, and late toxicity). Results: IMRT resulted in statistically significant decreases in the mean lung (p <.0001) and maximal spinal cord (p = .002 and 0005) doses, allowing an average increase in the PD of 8.6–14.2 Gy (p ≤.0001). This advantage was lost after de-escalation within the defined esophageal dose limits. The lung normal tissue complication probabilities were significantly lower for IMRT (p <.0001), even after dose escalation. For esophageal toxicity, IMRT significantly decreased the acute NTCP values at the low dose levels (p = .0009 and p <.0001). After maximal dose escalation, late esophageal tolerance became critical (p <.0001), especially when using IMRT, owing to the parallel increases in the esophageal dose and PD. Conclusion: In LA-NSCLC, IMRT offers the potential to significantly escalate the PD, dependent on the lung and spinal cord tolerance. However, parallel increases in the esophageal dose abolished the advantage, even when using collapsed cone algorithms. This is important to consider in the context of concomitant chemoradiotherapy schedules using IMRT. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and purpose: Innovative therapies are not only characterized by major uncertainties regarding clinical benefit and cost but also the expected recruitment of patients. An original model was developed to simulate patient recruitment to a costly particle therapy by varying layout of the facility and patient referral (one vs. several countries) and by weighting the treated indication by the expected benefit of particle therapy. Material and methods: A multi-step probabilistic spatial model was used to allocate patients to the optimal treatment strategy and facility taking into account the estimated therapeutic gain from the new therapy for each tumour type, the geographical accessibility of the facilities and patient preference. Recruitment was simulated under different assumptions relating to the demand and supply. Results: Extending the recruitment area, reducing treatment capacity, equipping all treatment rooms with a carbon ion gantry and inclusion of proton protocols in carbon ion facilities led to an increased proportion of indications with the highest expected benefit. Assuming the existence of a competing carbon ions facility, lower values of therapeutic gain, and a greater unwillingness of patients to travel for treatment increased the proportion of indications with low expected benefit. Conclusions: Modelling patient recruitment may aid decision-making when planning new and expensive treatments. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Time measurements were performed on daily treatment delivery with the aim to quantify the impact of quality assurance (QA) using an electronic portal imaging device (EPID) on RT delivery time and to validate the time burden of intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) as an example of advanced technology. Both increased QA and the delivery of IMRT were found to be significant parameters determining daily treatment time (TT), which in turn translates in increased treatment costs. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Purpose: To investigate the financial implications of radiotherapy (RT) to the internal mammary and medial supraclavicular lymph node chain (IM-MS) in postoperative breast cancer. Methods and Materials: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were performed, using Markov models, comparing the early and delayed costs and effects of IM-MS during a 20-year time span from a societal viewpoint. The outcome estimates were based on Level I evidence from postoperative RT literature and the cost estimates on the standard practice of the Leuven University Hospitals, with the RT costs derived from an activity-based costing program developed in the department. Results: On the basis of the assumptions of the model and seen during a 20-year time span, primary treatment including IM-MS RT results in a cost savings (approximately €10,000) compared with a strategy without RT. Because IM-MS RT also results in better clinical effectiveness and greater quality of life, the treatment with IM-MS dominates the approach without IM-MS. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results in all tested circumstances. Although threshold values were found for the cost of IM-MS, the cost at relapse, and the quality of life after treatment, these were substantially different from the baseline estimates, indicating that it is very unlikely that omitting IM-MS would become superior. Conclusion: This ex-ante cost evaluation of IM-MS RT showed that the upfront costs of locoregional RT are easily compensated for by avoiding the costs of treating locoregional and distant relapse at a later stage. The cost-sparing effect of RT should, however, be evaluated for a sufficiently long time span and is most specifically found in tumors with a rather slow natural history and a multitude of available systemic treatments at relapse, such as breast cancer. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Background and purpose: To investigate the financial consequences and the impact on daily implementation of CHART in lung cancer. Patients and methods: A cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis were performed using Markov models, comparing the early and delayed costs and effects of CHART for NSCLC over a 4-year time span from a societal viewpoint. The outcome estimates were based on the CHART literature, the cost estimates on the standard practice of the Leuven University Hospitals, the radiotherapy costs being derived from an activity-based costing (ABC) programme developed in the department. Results: The additional societal cost per life-year gained was €9164, the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year €11,576. Sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of these results, the incremental cost-utility ratio remaining well under 20,000€/QALY in all tested circumstances. The threshold analyses found the results of the study to be sensitive to the cost of CHART and to the quality of life after treatment. More specifically, standard treatment would become the optimal treatment if CHART would have a higher cost or would result in more long-term side effects. Conclusion: CHART should not be denied to patients with NSCLC on the basis of clinical or economic arguments. Other factors such as socio-economical, institutional, practical departmental and physician-bound barriers most probably explain the lack of implementation into daily practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

: PurposeThe activity-based costing method was used to compute radiotherapy costs. This report describes the model developed, the calculated costs, and possible applications for the Leuven radiotherapy department.: Methods and materialsActivity-based costing is an advanced cost calculation technique that allocates resource costs to products based on activity consumption. In the Leuven model, a complex allocation principle with a large diversity of cost drivers was avoided by introducing an extra allocation step between activity groups and activities. A straightforward principle of time consumption, weighed by some factors of treatment complexity, was used. The model was developed in an iterative way, progressively defining the constituting components (costs, activities, products, and cost drivers).: ResultsRadiotherapy costs are predominantly determined by personnel and equipment cost. Treatment-related activities consume the greatest proportion of the resource costs, with treatment delivery the most important component. This translates into products that have a prolonged total or daily treatment time being the most costly. The model was also used to illustrate the impact of changes in resource costs and in practice patterns.: ConclusionThe presented activity-based costing model is a practical tool to evaluate the actual cost structure of a radiotherapy department and to evaluate possible resource or practice changes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Study and methods: A double-blind placebo-controlled study randomized 108 patients to investigate the effect of sucralfate on gastrointestinal side effects of pelvic radiation.Results: Overall, pelvic radiation with the administered doses and fields and performed according to nowadays technical standards, was well tolerated. Comparison of the mean scores and the peak reactions for radiotherapy discomfort, diarrhoea and number of stools per day in the 80 evaluable patients showed no statistically significant difference between sucralfate and placebo.Conclusion: Based on these results, the use of sucralfate can not be recommended as standard practice. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

This study shows the feasibility of accelerated vindesine–ifosfamide–cisplatin chemotherapy, immediately followed by intensive radiotherapy to the residual tumour in responding patients, in 16 patients with pathologically proven stage IIIB non-small lung cancer. All toxicities were reversible, with only two of ten patients experiencing grade 3 oesophagitis, no treatment-related deaths and no serious late effects. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

• Nodal definition and delineation for lung cancer is variable in clinical practice. • Knowledge of anatomy and strict guidelines are crucial for high contouring quality. • A qualitative review is essential to understanding interobserver variability. • Quantitative evaluations are more robust if performed after a qualitative review. • Standardization and peer review of clinical practice at country level is feasible. The Quality Assurance project for stage III non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy ProCaLung performed a multicentric two-step exercise evaluating mediastinal nodal Target Volume Definition and Delineation (TVD) variability and the opportunity for standardization. The TVD variability before and after providing detailed guidelines and the value of qualitative contour reviewing before applying quantitative measures were investigated. The case of a patient with stage III NSCLC and involved mediastinal lymph nodes was used as a basis for this study. Twenty-two radiation oncologists from nineteen centers in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in at least one of two phases of the project (before and after introduction of ProCaLung contouring guidelines). The resulting thirty-three mediastinal nodal GTV and CTV contours were then evaluated using a qualitative-before-quantitative (QBQ) approach. First, a qualitative analysis was performed, evaluating adherence to most recent guidelines. From this, a list of observed deviations was created and these were used to evaluate contour conformity. The second analysis was quantitative, using overlap and surface distance measures to compare contours within qualitative groups and between phases. A 'most robust' reference volume for these analyses was created using the STAPLE-algorithm and an averaging method. Five GTV and seven CTV qualitative groups were identified. Second step contours were more often in higher-conformity groups (p = 0.012 for GTV and p = 0.024 for CTV). Median Residual Mean Square Distances improved from 2.34 mm to 1.36 mm for GTV (p = 0.01) and from 4.53 mm to 1.58 mm for CTV (p < 0.0001). Median Dice coefficients increased from 0.81 to 0.84 for GTV (p = 0.07) and from 0.82 to 0.89 for CTV (p ≤ 0.001). Using HC-contours only to generate references translated in more robust quantitative evaluations. Variability of mediastinal nodal TVD was reduced after providing the ProCaLung consensus guidelines. A qualitative review was essential for providing meaningful quantitative measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. Lung cancer (LC) patients suffer from multiple cooccurring symptoms. Interventions that have the potential to impact more than one symptom within a symptom cluster should be identified. The aim of this review was to examine nonpharmacological interventions that were effective in the management of one or more of the following symptoms in LC patients: dyspnea, fatigue, physical functioning (PF), and role functioning (RF). Methods. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was used for reporting this systematic review. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (using the PubMed interface), Embase (using the embase.com interface), and Web of Science were used as electronic databases. Randomized controlled studies were included if they assessed the effects of nonpharmacological interventions on dyspnea, fatigue, PF, and/or RF in patients with LC. Studies were evaluated with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and relevant data were extracted and narratively summarized. Results and Conclusions. In total, 89 articles were included. Search results (until April 2023) show that most evidence was found for exercise interventions, followed by multicomponent, psychoeducational, diet, acupuncture, and other interventions. Studies that had an effect on multiple symptoms were observed to have the most frequent instances of positively affecting dyspnea, followed by PF, fatigue, and RF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence of a volume–outcome association in cancer surgery has shaped the centralization of cancer services; however, it is unknown whether a similar association exists for radiation therapy. The objective of this study was to determine the association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis included studies that compared outcomes of patients who underwent definitive radiation therapy at high-volume radiation therapy facilities (HVRFs) versus low-volume facilities (LVRFs). The systematic review used Ovid MEDLINE and Embase. For the meta-analysis, a random effects model was used. Absolute effects and hazard ratios (HRs) were used to compare patient outcomes. The search identified 20 studies assessing the association between radiation therapy volume and patient outcomes. Seven of the studies looked at head and neck cancers (HNCs). The remaining studies covered cervical (4), prostate (4), bladder (3), lung (2), anal (2), esophageal (1), brain (2), liver (1), and pancreatic cancer (1). The meta-analysis demonstrated that HVRFs were associated with a lower chance of death compared with LVRFs (pooled HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87- 0.94). HNCs had the strongest evidence of a volume–outcome association for both nasopharyngeal cancer (pooled HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62-0.89) and nonnasopharyngeal HNC subsites (pooled HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75-0.84), followed by prostate cancer (pooled HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.86-0.98). The remaining cancer types showed weak evidence of an association. The results also demonstrate that some centers defined as HVRFs are undertaking very few procedures per annum (<5 radiation therapy cases per year). An association between radiation therapy treatment volume and patient outcomes exists for most cancer types. Centralization of radiation therapy services should be considered for cancer types with the strongest volume–outcome association, but the effect on equitable access to services needs to be explicitly considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cancer causes a substantial burden to our society, both from a health and an economic perspective. To improve cancer patient outcomes and lower society expenses, early diagnosis and timely treatment are essential. The recent COVID-19 crisis has disrupted the care trajectory of cancer patients, which may affect their prognosis in a potentially negative way. The purpose of this paper is to present a flexible decision-analytic Markov model methodology allowing the evaluation of the impact of delayed cancer care caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium which can be used by researchers to respond to diverse research questions in a variety of disruptive events, contexts and settings. Methods: A decision-analytic Markov model was developed for 4 selected cancer types (i.e. breast, colorectal, lung, and head and neck), comparing the estimated costs and quality-adjusted life year losses between the pre-COVID-19 situation and the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium. Input parameters were derived from published studies (transition probabilities, utilities and indirect costs) and administrative databases (epidemiological data and direct medical costs). One-way and probabilistic sensitivity analyses are proposed to consider uncertainty in the input parameters and to assess the robustness of the model's results. Scenario analyses are suggested to evaluate methodological and structural assumptions. Discussion: The results that such decision-analytic Markov model can provide are of interest to decision makers because they help them to effectively allocate resources to improve the health outcomes of cancer patients and to reduce the costs of care for both patients and healthcare systems. Our study provides insights into methodological aspects of conducting a health economic evaluation of cancer care and COVID-19 including insights on cancer type selection, the elaboration of a Markov model, data inputs and analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To investigate, in a prospective phase 1 to 2 trial, the safety and feasibility of delivering external beam radiation therapy in 5 fractions to the breast or thoracic wall, including boost and/or lymph nodes if needed, to women aged ≥65 years with breast cancer.Methods and Materials: Ninety-five patients aged ≥65 years, referred for adjuvant radiation therapy, were treated in 5 fractions over 12 days with a total dose of 28.5 Gy/5.7 Gy to the breast or thoracic wall and, if indicated, 27 Gy/5.4 Gy to the lymph node regions and 32.5 Gy/6.5 Gy to 34.5 Gy/6.9 Gy to the tumor bed. The primary endpoint was clinically relevant dermatitis (grade ≥2).Results: Mean follow-up time was 5.6 months, and mean age was 73.6 years. Clinically relevant dermatitis was observed in 11.6% of patients and only occurred in breast irradiation with boost (17.5% grade 2-3 vs 0% in the no-boost group). Although doses were high, treatment delivery with intensity modulated radiation therapy was swift, except for complex treatments, including lymph nodes for which single-arc volumetric modulated arc therapy was needed to reduce beam-on time.Conclusion: Accelerated radiation therapy in 5 fractions was technically feasible and resulted in low acute toxicity. Clinically relevant erythema was only observed in patients receiving a boost, but still at an acceptable rate. Although the follow-up is still short, the results on acute toxicity after accelerated radiation therapy were encouraging. A 5-fraction schedule is well tolerated in the elderly and may lower the threshold for radiation therapy in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background With increasing recognition of growing cancer incidence globally, efficient means of expanding radiotherapy capacity is imperative, and understanding the factors impacting human and financial needs is valuable. Materials and methods A time-driven activity-based costing analysis was performed, using a base case of 2-machine departments, with defined cost inputs and operating parameters. Four income groups were analysed, ranging from low to high income. Scenario analyses included department size, operating hours, fractionation, treatment complexity, efficiency, and centralised versus decentralised care. Results The base case cost/course is US$5,368 in HICs, US$2,028 in LICs; the annual operating cost is US$4,595,000 and US$1,736,000, respectively. Economies of scale show cost/course decreasing with increasing department size, mainly related to the equipment cost and most prominent up to 3 linacs. The cost in HICs is two or three times as high as in U-MICs or LICs, respectively. Decreasing operating hours below 8 h/day has a dramatic impact on the cost/course. IMRT increases the cost/course by 22%. Centralising preparatory activities has a moderate impact on the costs. Conclusions The results indicate trends that are useful for optimising local and regional circumstances. This methodology can provide input into a uniform and accepted approach to evaluating the cost of radiotherapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with metastatic cancer, especially when characterised by a low tumour burden (ie, oligometastatic disease), receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy has become a frequently practised and guideline-supported treatment strategy. Despite the increasing use in routine clinical practice, there is little information on the safety of combining SBRT with modern targeted therapy or immunotherapy and a paucity of high-level evidence to guide clinical management. A systematic literature review was performed to identify the toxicity profiles of combined metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy. These results served as the basis for an international Delphi consensus process among 28 interdisciplinary experts who are members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) OligoCare consortium. Consensus was sought about risk mitigation strategies of metastases-directed SBRT combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy; a potential need for and length of interruption to targeted therapy or immunotherapy around SBRT delivery; and potential adaptations of radiation dose and fractionation. Results of this systematic review and consensus process compile the best available evidence for safe combination of metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with metastatic or oligometastatic cancer and aim to guide today's clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average survival for all European cancer patients by 2035. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is increasing evidence for the integration of locally ablative therapy into multimodality treatment of oligometastatic disease (OMD). To support standardised data collection, analysis, and comparison, a consensus OMD classification based on fundamental disease and treatment characteristics has previously been established. This study investigated the completeness of reporting the proposed OMD characteristics in literature and evaluated whether the proposed OMD classification system can be applied to the historical data.Methods and Materials: A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, searching for prospective and retrospective studies, where stereotactic body radiation therapy was a treatment component of OMD. Reporting of the OMD characteristics as described in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification was analyzed, feasibility to retrospectively classify the proposed OMD states was investigated, and the effect of the categorization on overall survival (OS) was evaluated.Results: Our study shows incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics. The most fully reported characteristic was type of involved organs (88/95 studies); history of cancer progression was the least reported (not mentioned in 50/95 studies). Retrospective OMD classification of existing literature was only possible for 7 of the 95 studies. With respect to categorization as de novo, repeat, or induced OMD, homogeneous patient cohorts were observed in 21 of the 95 studies, most frequently de novo OMD in 20 studies. Differences in OS at 2, 3, or 5 years were not statistically significant between the different states. OS was significantly influenced by primary tumor histology, with superior OS observed for prostate cancer and worst OS observed for non-small cell lung cancer.Conclusions: The largely incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics hampers a retrospective classification of existing literature. To facilitate future comparison of individual studies, as well as validation of the OMD classification, comprehensive reporting of OMD characteristics using standardised terminology is recommended, as proposed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification system and following the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The inclusion rate of radiotherapy within 55% of NCCPs falls short of the 80% target set by GTFRCC. • Inclusion of radiotherapy specific planning in NCCPs varied according to income level and geography. • Prioritisation of radiotherapy in NCCPs is correlated with radiotherapy machine availability. • This study supports the importance of including radiotherapy in a country's NCCP. In 2015, the Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control (GTFRCC) called for 80% of National Cancer Control Plans (NCCP) to include radiotherapy by 2020. As part of the ongoing ESTRO Global Impact of Radiotherapy in Oncology (GIRO) project, we assessed whether inclusion of radiotherapy in NCCPs correlates with radiotherapy machine availability, national income, and geographic region. A previously validated checklist was used to determine whether radiotherapy was included in each country's NCCP. We applied the CCORE optimal radiotherapy utilisation model to the GLOBOCAN 2020 data to estimate the demand for radiotherapy and compared this to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC) supply data, stratifying by income level and world region. World regions were defined according to the IAEA. Complete data (including GLOBOCAN 2020, DIRAC and NCCP) was available for 143 countries. Over half (55%, n = 79) included a radiotherapy-specific checklist item within the plan. Countries which included radiotherapy services planning in their NCCP had a higher median number of machines (1.68 vs 0.75 machines/1000 patients needing radiotherapy, p < 0.001). There was significant regional and income-level heterogeneity in the inclusion of radiotherapy-related items in NCCPs. Low-income and Asia-Pacific countries were least likely to include radiation oncology services planning in their NCCP (p = 0.06 and p = 0.003, respectively). Few countries in the Asia-Pacific (18.6%) had a plan to develop or maintain radiation services, compared to 57% of countries in Europe. Only 55% of current NCCPs included any information regarding radiotherapy, below the GTFRCC's target of 80%. Prioritisation of radiotherapy in NCCPs was correlated with radiotherapy machine availability. There was regional and income-level heterogeneity regarding the inclusion of specific radiotherapy checklist items in the NCCPs. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote the inclusion of radiotherapy in future iterations of NCCPs in order to improve global access to radiation treatment. No direct funding was used in this research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background.Adaptive radiotherapy (ART) could be a tool to reduce toxicity and to facilitate dose escalation in stage III NSCLC. Our aim was to identify the most appropriate time and potential benefit of ART. Material and methods.We analyzed volume reduction and dosimetric consequences of 41 patients who were treated with concurrent (cCRT) (n = 21) or sequential (sCRT) chemoradiotherapy to a median dose of 70 Gy, 2 Gy/F. At every treatment fraction a cone-beam CT (CBCT) was performed. The gross tumor volume (GTV-T) was adapted (exclusion of lymph nodes) to create the GTV-T-F1. Every fifth fraction (F5–F30), the GTV-T-F1 was adapted on the CBCT to create a GTV-T-Fx. Dose volume histograms were recalculated for every GTV-T-Fx, enabling to create lookup tables to predict the theoretical dosimetric advantage on common lung dose constraints. Results.The average GTV reduction was 42.1% (range 4.0–69.3%); 50.1% and 33.7% for the cCRT and sCRT patients, respectively. A linear relationship between GTV-T-F1 volume and absolute volume decrease was found for both groups. The mean V5, V20, V30 and mean lung dose increased by 0.8, 3.1, 5.2 and 3.4%, respectively. A larger increase (p < 0.05) was observed for peripheral tumors and cCRT. Lookup tables were generated. Conclusion.ART offers the most beneficial dosimetric effects when performed around fraction 15, especially for patients with a large initial GTV-T treated by cCRT. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Centralisation of specialist cancer services is occurring in many countries, often without evaluating the potential impact before implementation. We developed a health service planning model that can estimate the expected impacts of different centralisation scenarios on travel time, equity in access to services, patient outcomes, and hospital workload, using rectal cancer surgery as an example.Methods: For this population-based modelling study, we used routinely collected individual patient-level data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and linked to the NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for 11 888 patients who had been diagnosed with rectal cancer between April 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2018, and who subsequently underwent a major rectal cancer resection in 163 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in England. Five centralisation scenarios were considered: closure of lower-volume centres (scenario A); closure of non-comprehensive cancer centres (scenario B); closure of centres with a net loss of patients to other centres (scenario C); closure of centres meeting all three criteria in scenarios A, B, and C (scenario D); and closure of centres with high readmission rates (scenario E). We used conditional logistic regression to predict probabilities of affected patients moving to each of the remaining centres and the expected changes in travel time, multilevel logistic regression to predict 30-day emergency readmission rates, and linear regression to analyse associations between the expected extra travel time for patients whose centre is closed and five patient characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity, and rurality of the patients' residential areas (rural, urban [non-London], or London). We also quantified additional workload, defined as the number of extra patients reallocated to remaining centres.Findings: Of the 11 888 patients, 4130 (34·7%) were women, 5249 (44·2%) were aged 70 years and older, and 5005 (42·1%) had at least one comorbidity. Scenario A resulted in closures of 43 (26%) of the 163 rectal cancer surgery centres, affecting 1599 (13·5%) patients; scenario B resulted in closures of 112 (69%) centres, affecting 7029 (59·1%) patients; scenario C resulted in closures of 56 (34%) centres, affecting 3142 (26·4%) patients; scenario D resulted in closures of 24 (15%) centres, affecting 874 (7·4%) patients; and scenario E resulted in closures of 16 (10%) centres, affecting 1000 (8·4%) patients. For each scenario, there was at least a two-times increase in predicted travel time for re-allocated patients with a mean increase in travel time of 23 min; however, the extra travel time did not disproportionately affect vulnerable patient groups. All scenarios resulted in significant reductions in 30-day readmission rates (range 4-48%). Three hospitals in scenario A, 41 hospitals in in scenario B, 13 hospitals in scenario C, no hospitals in scenario D, and two hospitals in scenario E had to manage at least 20 extra patients annually.Interpretation: This health service planning model can be used to to guide complex decisions about the closure of centres and inform mitigation strategies. The approach could be applied across different country or regional health-care systems for patients with cancer and other complex health conditons.Funding: National Institute for Health Research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the cornerstone of delivering sustained improvements in cancer outcome. To inform radiation therapy research policy and prioritization, we analyze the radiation therapy RCT landscape including comparison with trials of systemic therapies over the same period, with a specific focus on funding and disparities across income settings.Methods and Materials: This retrospective cohort study identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. RCTs were classified according to anticancer modality and country of origin. Descriptive statistics were used to compare key characteristics of radiation therapy RCT studies according to study design characteristics, tumor types evaluated, types of intervention appraised, treatment intent and main funding sources.Results: The study cohort included 694 RCTs of which 64 were radiation therapy RCTs (9%) compared with 601 systemic therapy RCTs (87%). Among all radiation therapy RCTs, 47% of them focused on 2 areas of evaluation: (1) combining radiation therapy with systemic agents (25%) and (2) changes in dose fractionation (22%). The most common cancers studied were head and neck (22%), lung (22%), and breast (14%), with cervical cancer trials representing only 3% of the cohort. Among the radiation therapy RCTs, 33% of them met their primary endpoint, and 62% assessed interventions in the curative setting compared with 31% in systemic therapy RCTs. For their country locations, 77% of radiation therapy RCTs took place in high-income countries, 13% in low-and-middle-income countries, and 11% in both high-income and low-and-middle-income countries. For funding, 17% of radiation therapy RCTs received funding from industry compared with 79% of systemic therapy RCTs.Conclusions: This study highlights the need for greater investment in radiation therapy RCTs and the need to look at the disparities in conducting RCTs globally. The study emphases the urgent need for more capacity building for cancer clinical trials in low-and-middle-income countries and more sustainable funding sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]