Search

Aim: To evaluate acute toxicity at 6 months after stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with oligometastatic cancer within the OligoCare cohort., Material and Methods: OligoCare is a prospective, registry-based, single-arm, observational study that aims to report prospective real-world data of patients with oligometastases from solid cancer treated with SBRT (NCT03818503). Primary tumor included non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), breast cancer (BC), colorectal cancer (CRC), and prostate cancer (PC). This analysis addresses a secondary endpoint of the trial, acute toxicity within 6 months after SBRT., Results: Out of 1,597registered patients, 1'468 patients were evaluated for acute toxicity. Globally, 290 (20 %) had NSCLC primary disease, 227 (16 %) had BC, 293 (20 %) had CRC, and 658 (45 %) had PC. Concomitant systemic treatment was administered in 527 (35.9 %) patients. According to the EORTC/ESTRO oligometastatic disease (OMD) classification, 828 (56 %) patients had de novo OMD, 464 (32 %) repeat OMD, and 176 (12 %) induced OMD. Acute grade ≥ 3 SBRT related adverse events were reported in 8 (0.5 %) patients, including 2 (0.1 %) fatal AEs. In particular, 6 (0.4 %) grade 3 events were: 1 empyema, 1 pneumonia, 1 radiation pneumonitis, 1 radiation skin injury, 1 decreased appetite, and 1 bone pain. Among those 2 occurred in NSCLC patients, 2 in BC patients, and 1 in CRC and PC patients each. The two (0.1 %) grade 5 toxicity were represented by: pneumonitis and cerebral hemorrhage., Conclusion: OligoCare is the largest prospective registry cohort on oligometastatic disease. Acute toxicity within 6 months was low, confirming the safety of SBRT in the treatment of oligometastases., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) was progressively adopted in clinical practice in Belgium, a reimbursement request in 2011 was not granted because of remaining clinical and economic uncertainty. A coverage with evidence development (CED) program on SBRT started in 2013, with the aim to assess clinical and technical patterns-of-care in Belgium and monitor survival per indication, in view of supporting inclusion in the reimbursement system., Methods: The Belgian National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance (NIHDI) initiated this prospective observational registry. Participating departments, using SBRT in clinical practice, signed the 'NIHDI convention'. Eligible patients had a primary tumour (PT) or oligometastatic disease (OMD). Patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics were collected through an online module of the Belgian Cancer Registry, prerequisite for financing. Five-year overall survival (5YOS) and 30- and 90-days mortality were primary outcomes, derived from vital status information., Findings: Between 10/2013 and 12/2019, 20 of the 24 accredited radiotherapy departments participated, 6 were academic. Registered cases per department ranged from 21 to 867. Of 5675 registrations analysed, the majority had good performance status and limited number of lesions. Enrolment of PTs remained stable over time, OMDs almost doubled. Peripheral lung lesions dominated in PTs as in OMDs. Other metastases were (para)spinal, 'non-standard' and hepatic. Thirty- and 90-days mortalities remained below 0.5% [95% CI 0.3%-0.8%] respectively 2.1% [95% CI 1.6%-2.7%]. 5YOS varied by indication, primary prostate patients performing best (85%, 95% CI [76%, 96%]), those with liver metastases worst (19%, 95% CI [15%, 24%]). Better OS was observed in academic departments, department size did not significantly impact survival. OMD survival was better in 2018-19., Interpretation: CED can be used to define patterns-of-care and real-life outcome of innovative radiotherapy. As the observed survival for different indications was in line with outcome in emerging literature, SBRT was included in the Belgian reimbursement system as of January 2020., Funding: NIHDI financed participating departments per registered case., Competing Interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE disclosure form and declare: YL is recipient of the HERO-VBHC chair, with payments made to her institution and has unpaid leadership roles in ESTRO (Scientific Committee member and ESTRO-HERO co-chair), the Belgian College of Oncology (Board member) and in the EORTC-ESTRO E2-RADIATE project (PI); DV has research collaboration with RaySearch Laboratories and received speakers fees from BeSTRO and JASTRO and per diem payment as teacher in the ESTRO SBRT course, and reports advisory roles for the Belgian Supreme Health Council and the Medical Jury of the Belgian Federal Agency for Nuclear Control, treasurer of ESTRO and board member of ‘Stand Up Against Cancer’; ML receives a grant of the Foundation Against Cancer for proton radiotherapy in pregnancy (ProPOSE). None of the aforementioned payments or roles are in relation to the submitted work. RW receives fees as president of the College for Physicians of Radiation Oncology Centres, which are paid to her institution; SR is working for the NIHDI, HE was working for the NIHDI during the course of the CED program; SJ and NVD both work for the BCR; but none declare financial or personal interests that could have influenced the submitted work. XG, NJ, LM, VR, KS and CW reported no financial or other relationships that might impact the submitted work., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Introduction: Spread through air spaces (STAS) consists of lung cancer tumor cells that are identified beyond the edge of the main tumor in the surrounding alveolar parenchyma. It has been reported by meta-analyses to be an independent prognostic factor in the major histologic types of lung cancer, but its role in lung cancer staging is not established., Methods: To assess the clinical importance of STAS in lung cancer staging, we evaluated 4061 surgically resected pathologic stage I R0 NSCLC collected from around the world in the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database. We focused on whether STAS could be a useful additional histologic descriptor to supplement the existing ones of visceral pleural invasion (VPI) and lymphovascular invasion (LVI)., Results: STAS was found in 930 of 4061 of the pathologic stage I NSCLC (22.9%). Patients with tumors exhibiting STAS had a significantly worse recurrence-free and overall survival in both univariate and multivariable analyses involving cohorts consisting of all NSCLC, specific histologic types (adenocarcinoma and other NSCLC), and extent of resection (lobar and sublobar). Interestingly, STAS was independent of VPI in all of these analyses., Conclusions: These data support our recommendation to include STAS as a histologic descriptor for the Ninth Edition of the TNM Classification of Lung Cancer. Hopefully, gathering these data in the coming years will facilitate a thorough analysis to better understand the relative impact of STAS, LVI, and VPI on lung cancer staging for the Tenth Edition TNM Stage Classification., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Donington reports receiving personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck & Co., Inc., and Genentech, Inc./F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., outside the submitted work. Dr. Joubert reports grants from AstraZeneca, Roche, Merck and Biomark Signature Inc. and personal fees from AstraZeneca and Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr. Mino-Kenudson reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Repare, Sanofi, AbbVie, Daiichi Sankyo, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Elsevier, outside the submitted work. Dr. Nishimura reports receiving grants from IASLC, outside the submitted work. Dr. Nicholson reports receiving personal fees from Merck, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Roche, AbbVie, Oncologica, UpToDate, the European Society of Oncology, Liberum, Takeda UK, and Sanofi and grants and personal fees from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Papotti reports receiving personal fees from Roche, Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. Dr. Ugalde Figueroa reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol, Roche, Medtronic, and Johnson & Johnson, outside the submitted work. Dr. Van Schil reports receiving personal fees from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Roche, and Janssen, outside the submitted work; and serving as President of International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and Treasurer of Belgian Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery. Dr. Yang reports being on advisory boards for AstraZeneca and Genentech. He has also received honorarium from AstraZeneca, outside the submitted work. Dr. Lievens reports financing from the EU ImmunoSABR project, personal fees from the UpLung project, Astra-Zeneca, outside the submitted work., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background and Introduction: Optimal dose and fractionation in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for oligometastatic cancer patients remain unknown. In this interim analysis of OligoCare, we analyzed factors associated with SBRT dose and fractionation., Materials and Methods: Analysis was based on the first 1,099 registered patients. SBRT doses were converted to biological effective doses (BED) using α/β of 10 Gy for all primaries, and cancer-specific α/β of 10 Gy for non-small cell lung and colorectal cancer (NSCLC, CRC), 2.5 Gy for breast cancer (BC), or 1.5 Gy for prostate cancer (PC)., Results: Of the interim analysis population of 1,099 patients, 999 (99.5 %) fulfilled inclusion criteria and received metastasis-directed SBRT for NSCLC (n = 195; 19.5 %), BC (n = 163; 16.3 %), CRC (n = 184; 18.4 %), or PC (n = 457; 47.5 %). Two thirds of patients were treated for single metastasis. Median number of fractions was 5 (IQR, 3-5) and median dose per fraction was 9.7 (IQR, 7.7-12.4) Gy. The most frequently treated sites were non-vertebral bone (22.8 %), lung (21.0 %), and distant lymph node metastases (19.0 %). On multivariate analysis, the dose varied significantly for primary cancer type (BC: 237.3 Gy BED, PC 300.6 Gy BED, and CRC 84.3 Gy BED), and metastatic sites, with higher doses for lung and liver lesions., Conclusion: This real-world analysis suggests that SBRT doses are adjusted to the primary cancers and oligometastasis location. Future analysis will address safety and efficacy of this site- and disease-adapted SBRT fractionation approach (NCT03818503)., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: BAJF received grants from Accuray, AIRC, IBA and Fondazione IEO-CCM, lecture payments/honoraria from Bayer, Accuray, Astellas, IBA, IPSEN, Astra Zeneca, Tecnologie Avanzate, Recordati, and Novartis, and has board appointments at Astra Zeneca, Bayer, and Seagen. MG and PO are PIs of the ESTRO-EORTC 1811-E²-RADIatE OligoCare trial. MG is president-elect of ESTRO., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: For cancer patient populations worldwide, the synchronous scale-up of diagnostics and treatments yields meaningful gains in survival and quality of life. Among advanced cancer therapies, radiotherapy (RT) and theranostics are key to achieving practical, high-quality, and personalized precision medicine - targeting disease manifestations of individual patients and broad populations, alike. Aiming to learn from one another across different world regions, the six country vignettes presented here depict both challenges and victories in de novo establishment or improvement of RT and theranostics infrastructure., Methods: The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) convened global RT and theranostics experts from diverse world regions and contexts to identify relevant challenges and report progress in their own six countries: Belgium, Brazil, Costa Rica, Jordan, Mongolia, and South Africa. These accounts are collated, compared, and contrasted herein., Results: Common challenges persist which could be more strategically assessed and addressed. A quantifiable discrepancy entails personnel. The estimated radiation oncologists (ROs), nuclear medicine physicians (NMPs), and medical physicists (MPs for RT and nuclear medicine) per million inhabitants in the six collective countries respectively range between 2.69-38.00 ROs, 1.00-26.00 NMPs, and 0.30-3.45 MPs (Table 1), reflecting country-to-country inequities which largely match World Bank country-income stratifications., Conclusion: Established goals for RT and nuclear medicine advancement worldwide have proven elusive. The pace of progress could be hastened by enhanced approaches such as more sustainably phased implementation; better multinational networking to share lessons learned; routine quality and safety audits; as well as capacity building employing innovative, resource-sparing, cutting-edge technologic approaches. Bodies such as ministries of health, professional societies, and the IAEA shall serve critical roles in convening and coordinating more innovative RT and theranostics translational research, including expanding nuanced global database metrics to inform, reach, and potentiate milestones most meaningfully., Policy Summary: Aligned with WHO 25×25 NCDs target; WHA70.12 and WHA76.5 resolutions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Introduction: The international phase II single-arm LungTech trial 22113-08113 of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer assessed the safety and efficacy of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in patients with centrally located early-stage NSCLC., Methods: Patients with inoperable non-metastatic central NSCLC (T1-T3 N0 M0, ≤7cm) were included. After prospective central imaging review and radiation therapy quality assurance for any eligible patient, SBRT (8 × 7.5 Gy) was delivered. The primary endpoint was freedom from local progression probability three years after the start of SBRT., Results: The trial was closed early due to poor accrual related to repeated safety-related pauses in recruitment. Between August 2015 and December 2017, 39 patients from six European countries were included and 31 were treated per protocol and analyzed. Patients were mainly male (58%) with a median age of 75 years. Baseline comorbidities were mainly respiratory (68%) and cardiac (48%). Median tumor size was 2.6 cm (range 1.2-5.5) and most cancers were T1 (51.6%) or T2a (38.7%) N0 M0 and of squamous cell origin (48.4%). Six patients (19.4%) had an ultracentral tumor location. The median follow-up was 3.6 years. The rates of 3-year freedom from local progression and overall survival were 81.5% (90% confidence interval [CI]: 62.7%-91.4%) and 61.1% (90% CI: 44.1%-74.4%), respectively. Cumulative incidence rates of local, regional, and distant progression at three years were 6.7% (90% CI: 1.6%-17.1%), 3.3% (90% CI: 0.4%-12.4%), and 29.8% (90% CI: 16.8%-44.1%), respectively. SBRT-related acute adverse events and late adverse events ≥ G3 were reported in 6.5% (n = 2, including one G5 pneumonitis in a patient with prior interstitial lung disease) and 19.4% (n = 6, including one lethal hemoptysis after a lung biopsy in a patient receiving anticoagulants), respectively., Conclusions: The LungTech trial suggests that SBRT with 8 × 7.5Gy for central lung tumors in inoperable patients is associated with acceptable local control rates. However, late severe adverse events may occur after completion of treatment. This SBRT regimen is a viable treatment option after a thorough risk-benefit discussion with patients. To minimize potentially fatal toxicity, careful management of dose constraints, and post-SBRT interventions is crucial., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Levy reports academic funding from Roche, Beigene, AstraZeneca, and Pharmamar. Dr. Adebahr was supported by the German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and is now supported by a grant from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Cancer care poses a significant economic burden, challenging healthcare budgets to balance patient benefits with affordability. Radiotherapy takes up only a limited part of oncology budgets, but the cost is rarely clear-cut due to influential factors such as complexity of treatments, highly-trained personnel and technologies. Health-economic appraisal is complex and can be performed in several ways, balancing costs and outcomes, but not all approaches are equally suitable for assessment of radiotherapy interventions. The concept of «value-based healthcare» offers a broader perspective to health-economic appraisal, considering various outcomes and the cost of the total cycle of care, thus addressing some of the challenges in radiotherapy: the diversity of interventions, a broad range of outcomes (including organ preservation or local control) and challenges in evidence generation. However, as the existing value-based frameworks in oncology are aimed at systemic therapies, a tailored approach for radiotherapy interventions is necessary to enhance access to innovative care and optimize resource allocation. This article explores the economic aspects of radiotherapy, providing an overview of radiotherapy cost determinants and calculations, discussing different health-economic strategies and value-based healthcare, and how these can address the specific challenges in radiotherapy.

Introduction: The accurate assessment of nodal (N) status is crucial to the management and prognostication of nonmetastatic NSCLC. We sought to determine whether the current N descriptors should be maintained or revised for the upcoming ninth edition of the international TNM lung cancer staging system., Methods: Data were assembled by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer on patients with NSCLC, detailing both clinical and pathologic N status, with information about anatomical location and individual station-level identification. Survival was calculated by the Kaplan-Meier method and prognostic groups were assessed by a Cox regression analysis., Results: Data for clinical N and pathologic N status were available in 45,032 and 35,009 patients, respectively. The current N0 to N3 descriptors for both clinical N and pathologic N categories reflect prognostically distinct groups. Furthermore, single-station N2 involvement (N2a) exhibited a better prognosis than multistation N2 involvement (N2b) in both clinical and pathologic classifications, and the differences between all neighboring nodal subcategories were highly significant. The prognostic differences between N2a and N2b were robust and consistent across resection status, histologic type, T category, and geographic region., Conclusions: The current N descriptors should be maintained, with the addition of new subdescriptors to N2 for single-station involvement (N2a) and multiple-station involvement (N2b)., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: This study analyzed all metastatic categories of the current TNM classification of NSCLC to propose modifications of the M component in the next edition (ninth) of the classification., Methods: A database of 124,581 patients diagnosed between 2011 and 2019 was established; of these, 14,937 with NSCLC in stages IVA to IVB were available for this analysis. Overall survival was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and prognosis was assessed using multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: The eighth edition M categories revealed good discrimination in the ninth edition data set. Assessments revealed that an increasing number of metastatic lesions were associated with decreasing prognosis; because this seems to be a continuum and adjustment for confounders was not possible, no specific lesion number was deemed appropriate for stage classification. Among tumors involving multiple metastases, decreasing prognosis was found with an increasing number of organ systems involved. Multiple assessments, including after adjustment for potential confounders, revealed that M1c patients who had metastases to a single extrathoracic organ system were prognostically distinct from M1c patients who had involvement of multiple extrathoracic organ systems., Conclusions: These data validate the eighth edition M1a and M1b categories, which are recommended to be maintained. We propose the M1c category be divided into M1c1 (involvement of a single extrathoracic organ system) and M1c2 (involvement of multiple extrathoracic organ systems)., Competing Interests: Disclosure Dr. Fong reports receiving grants and contracts from MRFF EPCDR, NHMRC Ideas Grant, MRFF Next Generation Clinical Researchers Program, NHMRC; receiving funds from UpToDate as reviewer and Cochrane Clinical Answers as reviewer; and receiving equipment support from Olympus and Mevis Veolity. Mr. Rosenthal reports receiving fees for service from IASLC to complete work associated with publication. Ms. Giroux reports receiving fees for service from IASLC to complete work associated with publication. Dr. Nishimura reports receiving fees for service from IASLC to complete work associated with publication. Dr. Erasmus reports receiving honoraria from Canadian Association of Radiologists. Dr. Lievens reports receiving grants and contracts for the ImmunoSABR EU Project, HERO-VBHC chair; consulting fees from AstraZeneca; and honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme. Dr. Marom reports receiving honoraria from Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Putora reports receiving grants or contracts from Bayer, Takeda, and AstraZeneca. Dr. Suárez reports receiving consulting fees from AstraZeneca and Roche; honoraria from AstraZeneca. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: An international database was created by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer to inform on the ninth edition of the TNM classification of lung cancer. The present analyses concern its T component., Methods: Data on 124,581 patients diagnosed with lung cancer from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2019 were submitted to the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database. Of these, 33,982 met the inclusion criteria for the clinical T analysis, and 30,715 met the inclusion criteria for the pathologic postsurgical analysis. Survival was measured from the date of diagnosis or operation for clinically and pathologically staged tumors, respectively. T descriptors were evaluated in univariate analysis and multivariable Cox regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, pathologic type, and geographic region., Results: Comprehensive survival analysis revealed that the existing eighth edition T component criteria performed adequately in the ninth edition data set. Although pathologic chest wall or parietal pleura involvement (PL 3) yielded a worse survival compared with the other T3 descriptors, with a similar survival as T4 tumors, this difference was not observed for clinical chest wall or PL 3 tumors. Because of these inconsistent findings, no reallocation of chest wall or PL 3 tumors is advised., Conclusions: The T subcommittee members proposed not to implement any changes and keep the current eighth-edition T descriptors for the ninth edition., (Copyright © 2023 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: I declare no competing interests.

Background/purpose: To reduce inequalities among SIOPE-affiliated countries, standard and optional levels to deliver 'Good Clinical Practice' compliant treatment in pediatric radiation oncology have been published. The aim of this project was to map the availability of pediatric radiotherapy resources across SIOPE-affiliated radiotherapy departments., Materials/methods: An online survey with 34 questions was distributed to 246 radiotherapy departments across 35 SIOPE-affiliated countries. In addition to demographic data, 15 general items related to the organization of the radiotherapy process, and 10 radiotherapy-specific items were defined. For each of the 25 items, sum scores were calculated per center and country. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze associations., Results: Between March-June 2019, 121 departments (49 %) out of 31 countries (89 %) completed the survey. At center level, involvement of core disciplines in tumor boards (28 %), and integration of dedicated pediatric radiation therapy technologists (24 %) are limited, while rare & complex brachytherapy procedures are performed in many centers (23 %). For general and radiotherapy-specific items respectively, a relevant variation of sum scores was observed across countries (Δ general : ≤10 points; Δ RT&#95;specific : ≤5 points) and among centers within a country (Δ general : ≤9 points; Δ RT&#95;specific : ≤6 points). Sum scores for general and radiotherapy-specific items were higher in countries with a high-income (p < 0.01) and higher health development index (p < 0.01). A larger annual number of irradiated pediatric patients was associated with higher sum scores for general items (p < 0.01)., Conclusion: This survey demonstrates the disparities in organization of pediatric radiotherapy departments between SIOPE-affiliated countries and centers within the same country. Investment is needed to reduce inequalities in pediatric radiotherapy care., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the encouraging results of the SCORAD trial, single fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) remains underused for patients with complicated bone metastases with rates as low as 18-39%. We aimed to evaluate the incidence and treatment patterns of these metastases in patients being referred to a tertiary centre for palliative radiotherapy., Materials and Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all bone metastases treated at our centre from January 2013 until December 2017. Lesions were classified as uncomplicated or complicated. Complicated was defined as associated with (impending) fracture, existing spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Our protocol suggests using SFRT for all patients with complicated bone metastases, except for those with symptomatic neuraxial compression and a life expectancy of ≥28 weeks., Results: Overall, 37 % of all bone metastases were classified as complicated. Most often as a result of an (impending) fracture (56 %) or spinal cord compression (44 %). In 93 % of cases, complicated lesions were located in the spine, most commonly originating from prostate, breast and lung cancer (60 %). Median survival of patients with complicated bone metastases was 4 months. The use of SFRT for complicated bone metastases increased from 51 % to 85 % over the study period, reaching 100 % for patients with the poorest prognosis., Conclusions: Approximately 37 % of bone metastases are classified as complicated with the majority related to (impending) fracture. Patients with complicated bone metastases have a median survival of 4 months and were mostly treated with SFRT., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Background and Purpose: The aim of this study was to review the published studies on the utilisation of radiotherapy in lung cancer (both small and non-small cell lung cancer, SCLC and NSCLC) patients in European countries with a population-based perspective., Material and Methods: A literature search since January 2000 until December 2022 was carried out. Only English-published papers were included, and only European data was considered. PRISMA guidelines were followed. A scoping narrative review was undertaken due to the hetereogeneity of the published papers., Results: 38 papers were included in the analysis, with the majority from the Netherlands (52.6%) and the UK (18.4%). Large variability is observed in the reported radiotherapy utilisation, around 40% for NSCLC in general and between 26 and 42% in stage I NSCLC. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) shows a wide range of utilisation across countries and over time, from 8 to 63%. Similary, in stage III lung cancer, chemoradiotherapy (CRT) utilisation varied considerably (11-70%). Eleven studies compared radiotherapy utilisation between older and younger age-groups, showing that younger patients receive more CRT, while the opposite applies for SBRT. An widespreadlack of data on relevant covariates such as comorbidty and health-services related variables is observed., Conclusion: The actual utilisation of radiotherapy for lung cancer reported in patterns-of-care studies (POCs) is notably lower than the evidence-based optimal utilisation. Important variability is observed by country, time period, stage at diagnosis and age. A wider use of POCs should be promoted to improve our knowledge on the actual application of evidence-based treatment recommendations., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Introduction: Fifty per cent of patients with cancer require radiotherapy during their disease course, however, only 10%-40% of patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have access to it. A shortfall in specialised workforce has been identified as the most significant barrier to expanding radiotherapy capacity. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based software has been developed to automate both the delineation of anatomical target structures and the definition of the position, size and shape of the radiation beams. Proposed advantages include improved treatment accuracy, as well as a reduction in the time (from weeks to minutes) and human resources needed to deliver radiotherapy., Methods: ARCHERY is a non-randomised prospective study to evaluate the quality and economic impact of AI-based automated radiotherapy treatment planning for cervical, head and neck, and prostate cancers, which are endemic in LMICs, and for which radiotherapy is the primary curative treatment modality. The sample size of 990 patients (330 for each cancer type) has been calculated based on an estimated 95% treatment plan acceptability rate. Time and cost savings will be analysed as secondary outcome measures using the time-driven activity-based costing model. The 48-month study will take place in six public sector cancer hospitals in India (n=2), Jordan (n=1), Malaysia (n=1) and South Africa (n=2) to support implementation of the software in LMICs., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has received ethical approval from University College London (UCL) and each of the six study sites. If the study objectives are met, the AI-based software will be offered as a not-for-profit web service to public sector state hospitals in LMICs to support expansion of high quality radiotherapy capacity, improving access to and affordability of this key modality of cancer cure and control. Public and policy engagement plans will involve patients as key partners., Competing Interests: Competing interests: AA: Advancer Fellowship from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR300599). YL: ESTRO University of Gent Chair on Value-Based Radiation Oncology—payments to University of Gent and unpaid member of scientific committee of ESTRO. HS: Contract between Stellenbosch University and MD. Anderson Cancer Centre related to a different study in auto-planning radiotherapy—payment to Stellenbosch University and unpaid clinical advisory group for an autoplanning project., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: 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., Methods and Materials: 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., Results: 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)., Conclusions: 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., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: Cancer is one of Europe's key research missions, with gender equity a major policy pillar. To benchmark how well European countries perform for gender balance in cancer research, high quality intelligence is required., Methods: For cancer research papers in Europe (EUR31; the 28 EU Member States plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) from two specific years (2009 and 2019), we evaluated the numbers of female authors overall and then the female last-author presence, as a proxy of female cancer research leadership., Results: Overall, female authorship increased from 42% to 49%. In 2009, females represented 50% or more of cancer research authors in only five EUR31 countries. By 2019, that number had risen to 17. In Eastern European (EE) countries, females were more likely to be in the majority. The presence of female cancer research authors in the last (senior) author position increased from 24% to 34%. Five of the top six countries for female authorship in 2019 were from EE, whereas disappointingly four central European countries (Austria (AT), Czechia (CZ), Germany (DE) and Switzerland (CH)) were below the 25th percentile. A number of European powerhouses of cancer research (UK, DE, CH) underperformed in terms of female cancer research leadership. However, when cancer researchers from these countries worked abroad (e.g. Scandinavia, USA) the percentage of females was similar to that of their host countries. A factor potentially influencing female cancer research participation was availability and relative cost of child-care, which is more favourable in Scandinavia and EE than in central/western Europe., Conclusion: Our data show that Horizon Europe's Cancer Mission must ensure gender equity in its future research programmes and support the enhancement of female cancer research leadership opportunities., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest ML declares honoraria for presentations unrelated to this work from Bayer, Carnall Farrar, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. No other authors declare DOI., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Khan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Importance: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) targeting programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) and PD-1 ligand 1 have improved the outcome for many cancer types, the majority of patients fails to respond to ICI monotherapy. Hypofractionated radiotherapy has the potential to improve the therapeutic ratio of ICIs., Objective: To assess the addition of radiotherapy to ICIs compared with ICI monotherapy in patients with advanced solid tumors., Design, Setting, and Participants: This open-label, multicenter, randomized phase 2 trial was conducted in 5 Belgian hospitals and enrolled participants between March 2018 and October 2020. Patients 18 years or older with locally advanced or metastatic melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, urothelial carcinoma, head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, or non-small cell lung carcinoma were eligible. A total of 99 patients were randomly assigned to either the control arm (n = 52) or the experimental arm (n = 47). Of those, 3 patients (1 in the control arm vs 2 in the experimental arm) withdrew consent and thus were not included in the analysis. Data analyses were performed between April 2022 and March 2023., Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive anti-PD-1/PD-1 ligand 1 ICIs alone as per standard of care (control arm) or combined with stereotactic body radiotherapy 3 × 8 gray to a maximum of 3 lesions prior to the second or third ICI cycle, depending on the frequency of administration (experimental arm). Randomization was stratified according to tumor histologic findings and disease burden (3 and fewer or more than 3 cancer lesions)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS) as per immune Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. Key secondary end points included overall survival (OS), objective response rate, local control rate, and toxic effects. Efficacy was assessed in the intention-to-treat population, while safety was evaluated in the as-treated population., Results: Among 96 patients included in the analysis (mean age, 66 years; 76 [79%] female), 72 (75%) had more than 3 tumor lesions and 65 (68%) had received at least 1 previous line of systemic treatment at time of inclusion. Seven patients allocated to the experimental arm did not complete the study-prescribed radiotherapy course due to early disease progression (n = 5) or intercurrent illness (n = 2). With a median (range) follow-up of 12.5 (0.7-46.2) months, median PFS was 2.8 months in the control arm compared with 4.4 months in the experimental arm (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.58-1.53; P = .82). Between the control and experimental arms, no improvement in median OS was observed (11.0 vs 14.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; P = .47), and objective response rate was not statistically significantly different (22% vs 27%; P = .56), despite a local control rate of 75% in irradiated patients. Acute treatment-related toxic effects of any grade and grade 3 or higher occurred in 79% and 18% of patients in the control arm vs 78% and 18% in the experimental arm, respectively. No grade 5 adverse events occurred., Conclusions and Relevance: This phase 2 randomized clinical trial demonstrated that while safe, adding subablative stereotactic radiotherapy of a limited number of metastatic lesions to ICI monotherapy failed to show improvement in PFS or OS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03511391.

Purpose: This joint guideline by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) was initiated to review evidence and provide recommendations regarding the use of local therapy in the management of extracranial oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Local therapy is defined as the comprehensive treatment of all known cancer-primary tumor, regional nodal metastases, and metastases-with definitive intent., Methods: ASTRO and ESTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions focused on the use of local (radiation, surgery, other ablative methods) and systemic therapy in the management of oligometastatic NSCLC. The questions address clinical scenarios for using local therapy, sequencing and timing when integrating local with systemic therapies, radiation techniques critical for oligometastatic disease targeting and treatment delivery, and the role of local therapy for oligoprogression or recurrent disease. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using ASTRO guidelines methodology., Results: Based on the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach was strongly recommended for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. Integration of definitive local therapy was only relevant if technically feasible and clinically safe to all disease sites, defined as 5 or fewer distinct sites. Conditional recommendations were given for definitive local therapies in synchronous, metachronous, oligopersistent, and oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial disease. Radiation and surgery were the only primary definitive local therapy modalities recommended for use in the management of patients with oligometastatic disease, with indications provided for choosing one over the other. Sequencing recommendations were provided for systemic and local therapy integration. Finally, multiple recommendations were provided for the optimal technical use of hypofractionated radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy as definitive local therapy, including dose and fractionation., Conclusions: Presently, data regarding clinical benefits of local therapy on overall and other survival outcomes is still sparse for oligometastatic NSCLC. However, with rapidly evolving data being generated supporting local therapy in oligometastatic NSCLC, this guideline attempted to frame recommendations as a function of the quality of data available to make decisions in a multidisciplinary approach incorporating patient goals and tolerances., Competing Interests: Disclosures All task force members’ disclosure statements were reviewed before being invited and were shared with other task force members throughout the guideline's development. Those disclosures are published within this guideline. Where potential conflicts were detected, remedial measures to address them were taken. Tom Boike: APEx reviewer (honoraria), Boston Scientific (speaker's bureau); Anne-Marie Dingemans: Amgen (advisory board, research), Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Lilly, PharmaMar, Roche, Sanofi (all advisory boards), AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda (all honoraria), EORTC Lung Cancer Group (chair); Jill Feldman (patient representative): AstraZeneca, Blueprint Medicines, Janssen, Novartis (all honoraria), EGFR Resisters (cofounder), IASLC Patient Advocate Committee (chair); Daniel Gomez: AstraZeneca (consultant and research), GRAIL (consultant), Johnson & Johnson (consultant), Medtronic (advisory board), Medical Learning Group (honoraria–ended 8/2021), Varian (consultant and research); Matthias Guckenberger (co-chair): European Thoracic Oncology Platform (research), Varian (research-ended 12/2020), ViewRay (institutional research), ESTRO (president); Paul Hesketh (American Society of Clinical Oncology representative): UpToDate (consultant – editor); Puneeth Iyengar (co-chair): AstraZeneca (advisory board-ended 12/2020), National Cancer Institute/NRG Oncology (research – PI); Salma Jabbour: Advarra (consultant – DSMB), IMX Medical and Merck (consultant), Novocure (consultant-ended 4/2022), Beigene and Merck (institutional research grant), Syntactx (consultant – adjudication committee), International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics (deputy editor), NCI Radiation Research Program, Upper GI Work Group (co-chair); Mirjana Josipovic: Danish National Research Center for Radiation Therapy (research), Varian (institutional research); Yolande Lievens: AstraZeneca (institutional research), Belgium College for Physicians in Radiation Oncology, (deputy chair-ended 10/2021), Belgium College of Oncology & AntiCancer Fund (board member), European Cancer Organization (Ex-officio executive committee member-ended 3/2022), ESTRO (former president), UGent Chair on ESTRO value-based health care (promotor, institutional research); Fiona McDonald: AstraZeneca (institutional research), Cancer Research United Kingdom (research – PI), Merck (institutional research), IASLC Advanced Radiotherapy Committee (chair), ESTRO ACROP Guidelines Committee (chair), UK SABR Consortium (chair); Bradford Perez: BMS (consultant, research-ended 12/2021), G1 Therapeutics (consultant–ended 4/2021); Umberto Ricardi: BrainLab (institutional research), ESTRO (past president); Enrico Ruffini: AstraZeneca (honoraria), European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (past president), IASLC (steering committee and chair, Thymic subcommittee); Dirk De Ruysscher: AstraZeneca and BMS (research and institutional advisory board), BeiGene (institutional research), Celgene, Merck/Pfizer, Roche/Genentech, Seattle Genetics (all institutional advisory boards), EORTC Lung Oligometastases committee (chair); Suresh Senan: AstraZeneca (advisory board – DSMB), BMS (consultant–ended 6/2022), BeiGene (advisory board-ended 3/2021), Merck (consultant), Varian and ViewRay (institutional research); Joachim Widder: Elekta and Raysearch (institutional research); Hina Saeed (Guideline Subcommittee representative),Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology (editor); Bryan Schneider (American Society of Clinical Oncology representative), ASCO Guideline advisory group (co-chair), NCCN Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Related Toxicities guideline (vice chair). Sean All, Mark Berry, and Lisa Bradfield reported no disclosures., (Copyright © 2023 American Society for Radiation Oncology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: To better understand the impact of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) and its treatment-related toxicity on early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (ES-NSCLC) patients, we conducted the Lung PLUS study in a real-world setting., Methods: This is a monocentric prospective longitudinal study up to 12 months post-treatment, evaluating clinician- and patient-reported toxicity (resp. CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE), health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (EORTC QLQ-C30 and LC-13), activities of daily living (HAQ-DI) and functional exercise capacity (6 Minute Walking Test (6MWT)). A mixed model approach was applied to analyze the data., Results: At baseline, clinicians and patients (n=51) reported mostly fatigue (63% vs 79%), cough (49% vs 75%) and dyspnea (65% vs 73%) of any grade. Dyspnea (p=.041) increased over time. Meaningful clinical improvements were particularly seen in pain, fatigue, and cough. Clinician reported clinically meaningful improvements and deteriorations over time in fatigue, cough, and dyspnea. Almost at every timepoint, more people reported deterioration to the clinician than improvement in aforementioned toxicities. Overall HRQoL (p=.014), physical (p=.011) and emotional (p<.001) functioning improved over time. At baseline, patients had a moderate daily functioning score and walked an average distance of 360 meters. No statistically significant differences were found in daily functioning and exercise capacity over time., Conclusion: Our study showed an increase in patient-reported toxicity and dyspnea, without impacting functional status, following SBRT. Overall HRQoL, physical and emotional functioning improved over time. Understanding the impact of treatment on patient-reported outcomes is crucial to identify the needs/problems of patients to enhance their HRQoL., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 van der Weijst, Bultijnck, Van Damme, Huybrechts, van Eijkeren and Lievens.)

Purpose: Hypofractionation is noninferior to conventional fractionation in the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Using results from the European Society of Radiation Oncology's (ESTRO) Global Impact of Radiotherapy in Oncology (GIRO) initiative survey on hypofractionation, this study identifies rates of adoption, facilitating factors, and barriers to adoption of hypofractionation in prostate cancer across World Bank income groups., Materials and Methods: The ESTRO-GIRO initiative administered an international, anonymous, electronic survey to radiation oncologists from 2018 to 2019. Physician demographics, clinical practice characteristics, and hypofractionation regimen use (if any) for several prostate cancer scenarios were collected. Responders were asked about specific justifications and barriers to adopting hypofractionation, and responses were stratified by World Bank income group. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to analyze variables associated with hypofractionation preference., Results: A total of 1,157 physician responses were included. Most respondents (60%) were from high-income countries (HICs). In the curative setting, hypofractionation was most often preferred in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancers, with 52% and 47% of respondents reporting hypofractionation use in ≥50% of patients, respectively. These rates drop to 35% and 20% in high-risk prostate cancer and where pelvic irradiation is indicated. Most respondents (89%) preferred hypofractionation in the palliative setting. Overall, respondents from upper-middle-income countries and lower-middle- and low-income countries were significantly less likely to prefer hypofractionation than those from HICs ( P < .001). The most frequently cited justification and barrier were availability of published evidence and fear of worse late toxicity, respectively., Conclusion: Hypofractionation preference varies by indication and World Bank income group, with greater acceptance among providers in HICs for all indications. These results provide a basis for targeted interventions to increase provider acceptance of this treatment modality.

Introduction: Timely access to radiotherapy innovations remains suboptimal, partly because there is no commonly agreed appraisal system suitable for the broad range of radiotherapy interventions. The Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (HERO) programme of ESTRO therefore engaged in building a radiotherapy-specific value-based framework. We report on a first step towards that aim, documenting the available definitions and classification systems for radiotherapy interventions., Methods: A systematic literature search was carried out in Pubmed and Embase, following PRISMA methodology and using search terms on 'innovation', 'radiotherapy', 'definition' and 'classification'. Data were extracted from articles that met prespecified inclusion criteria., Results: Out of 13,353 articles, 25 met the inclusion criteria, resulting in the identification of 7 definitions of innovation and 15 classification systems applicable to radiation oncology. Iterative appraisal divided the classification systems into two groups. A first group of 11 systems categorized innovations according to the perceived magnitude of innovation, typically 'minor' versus 'major'. The remaining 4 systems categorised innovations according to radiotherapy-specific characteristics, such as the type of radiation equipment or radiobiological properties. Here, commonly used terms as 'technique' or 'treatment' were found to be used in different meanings., Discussion: There is no widely accepted definition or classification system for radiotherapy innovations. The data however suggest that unique properties of radiotherapy interventions can be used to categorise innovations in radiation oncology. Still, there remains a need for clear terminology denoting radiotherapy-specific characteristics., Conclusion: Building on this review, the ESTRO-HERO project will define what is required for a radiotherapy-specific value-based assessment tool., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The status of lymph node involvement is a major component of the TNM staging system. The N categories for lung cancer have remained unchanged since the fourth edition of the TNM staging system, partly because of differences in nodal mapping nomenclature, partly because of insufficient details to verify possible alternative approaches for staging. In preparation for the rigorous analysis of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database necessary for the ninth edition TNM staging system, members of the N-Descriptors Subcommittee of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee reviewed the evidence for alternative approaches to categorizing the extent of lymph node involvement with lung cancer, which is currently based solely on the anatomical location of lymph node metastasis. We reviewed the literature focusing on NSCLC to stimulate dialogue and mutual understanding among subcommittee members engaged in developing the ninth edition TNM staging system for lung cancer, which has been proposed for adoption by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control in 2024. The discussion of the range of possible revision options for the N categories, including the pros and cons of counting lymph nodes, lymph node stations, or lymph node zones, also provides transparency to the process, explaining why certain options may be discarded, others deferred for future consideration. Finally, we provide a preliminary discussion of the future directions that the N-Descriptors Subcommittee might consider for the 10th edition and beyond., (Copyright © 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests FA declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Varian, Elekta, Brainlabs, outside of this Policy Review. CBe declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Novartis. CBe also declares support for attending meetings and travel from Pfizer and Eli Lilly, unrelated to this Policy Review. CBi declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from SPCC congress, unrelated to this Policy Review. BdB declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Debiopharma, Ipsen, and Astellas; support for attending meetings and travel from Debiopharma and Micropos medical; and leadership or fiduciary role in the board, society, committee, or advocacy group of ESTRO, SAKK, and SASRO, unrelated to this Policy Review. BAJ-F declares grants or contracts from Italian Association for Cancer Research, FIEO-CCM and FUV, Accuray, and IBA Dosimetry; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Bayer, Roche, Astellas, Ipsen, and Accuray; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Bayer, unrelated to this Policy Review. XG declares a grant from Varian paid to their institution; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events for Congress Care and Sanofi; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the board, society, committee, or advocacy group for RIZIV–INAMI and FANC–AFCN. YL declares grants or contracts from ImmunoSABR, EU Project, and HERO–VBHC; consulting fees paid to the institution by AstraZeneca; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the board, society, committee, or advocacy group of ESTRO, Belgian College of Oncology, and EORTC–ESTRO Radiation Infrastructure for Europe project, unrelated to this Policy Review. PO declares grants or contracts from Varian and Bayer; consulting fees from Bayer, AAA, Curium, Janssen, Telix, MSD, and Ferring; and support for attending meetings and travel from Ferring, unrelated to this Policy Review. SP declares personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, Seattle Genetics, Turning Point Therapeutics, and EQRx; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational event from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Guardant Health, Janssen, Merck Sereno, Roche, Takeda, and Pfizer; payment for expert testimony from Roche and Merck Sereno; support for attending meetings and travel from Janssen and Roche; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beigene, Blueprint, BMS, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Guardant Health, Incyte, Janssen, Eli Lilly, Merck Serono, MSD, Novartis, Roche, Takeda, Pfizer, and Seattle Genetics; and leadership or fiduciary role in the board, society, committee, or advocacy group of British Thoracic Oncology Group, ALK Positive UK, Lung Cancer Europe, Ruth Strauss Foundation, Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation, and ETOP–IBCSG Partners Foundation Board, unrelated to this Policy Review. SR declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from MSD Italia, Genetec, and Istituto Gentili Amgen; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Roche and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this Policy Review. UR declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Elekta and Accuray, unrelated to this Policy Review. MS declares payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Roche, and Merck; participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for Janssen, Ipsen, and Merck; and a leadership or fiduciary role in the board, society, committee, or advocacy group for ESMO, unrelated to this Policy Review. TZ declares grants or contracts from Varian Medical Systems and Debiopharm; consulting fees from Janssen and Astellas; payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers bureaus, manuscript writing, or educational events from Janssen, Astellas, Debiopharm, Bayer, and Ferring; support for attending meetings and travel from Debiopharm; and participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for SAKK scientific board and GFRU, unrelated to this Policy Review. All other authors report no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Population-based cancer registries are responsible for collecting incidence and survival data on all reportable neoplasms within a defined geographical area. During the last decades, the role of cancer registries has evolved beyond monitoring epidemiological indicators, as they are expanding their activities to studies on cancer aetiology, prevention, and quality of care. This expansion relies also on the collection of additional clinical data, such as stage at diagnosis and cancer treatment. While the collection of data on stage, according to international reference classification, is consolidated almost everywhere, data collection on treatment is still very heterogeneous in Europe. This article combines data from a literature review and conference proceedings together with data from 125 European cancer registries contributing to the 2015 ENCR-JRC data call to provide an overview of the status of using and reporting treatment data in population-based cancer registries. The literature review shows that there is an increase in published data on cancer treatment by population-based cancer registries over the years. In addition, the review indicates that treatment data are most often collected for breast cancer, the most frequent cancer in women in Europe, followed by colorectal, prostate and lung cancers, which are also more common. Treatment data are increasingly being reported by cancer registries, though further improvements are required to ensure their complete and harmonised collection. Sufficient financial and human resources are needed to collect and analyse treatment data. Clear registration guidelines are to be made available to increase the availability of real-world treatment data in a harmonised way across Europe., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Giusti, Martos, Trama, Bettio, Sanvisens, Audisio, Arndt, Francisci, Dochez, Ribes, Fernández, Gavin, Gatta, Marcos-Gragera, Lievens, Allemani, De Angelis, Visser, Van Eycken and the ENCR Working Group on Treatment Data Harmonisation.)

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 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests ML declares honoraria from Bayer, Carnall Farrar, EMD Serono, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche unrelated to this work and membership of the board of the European Cancer Organisation (ECO). AA declares Advanced NIH Fellowship unrelated to this work. AMB declares honorarium from Roche unrelated to this work and Presidency of Lung Cancer Europe. MC declares membership of the board of ECO and the European Society of Oncology Pharmacy. FC declares consultancy and advisory board membership of Amgen, Astellas/Medivation, AstraZeneca, Celgene, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, GE Oncology, Genentech, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Iqvia, Macrogenics, Medscape, Merck-Sharp, Merus, Mylan, Mundipharma, Novartis, Pfizer, PierreFabre, prIME Oncology, Roche, Sanofi, Samsung Bioepis, Seagen, Teva, and Touchime unrelated to this work. TC declares honoraria from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Roche, Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Pfizer, and Takeda unrelated to this work. LD declares consultancy from the International Cancer Research Partnership unrelated to this work. FDN declares grants from the AIRC Foundation for Cancer Research, Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro, and Fondazione Piemontese per la Ricerca sul Cancro-ONLUS, and consultancy from Pierre Fabre unrelated to this work. JJ declares consultancy from AstraZeneca, Exact Sciences, and Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. DK declares honoraria from Merck Sharpe & Dohme unrelated to this work. TKo declares grants from Ipsen, AAA Pharma, Novartis, Isotope Technologies Munich, Victory Net Foundation, and Camulus, and honoraria or support from Cor2Ed, Ipsen, ECO, International Cancer Genome Consortium unrelated to this work. CLV received support from AIRC Foundation. YL is chair of the HERO VBHC and member of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) Scientific Committee, the Belgian College of Oncology, and a personal investigator on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer/ESTRO E2-RADIATE project. PS declares support from ECO and the European School of Oncology. SO, KO, AS, CA, PN, KA, MA, AC, MPC, ACo, CLD, AE, SE, MG, BJo, OK, TKu, GL, FM, JP, TP, RP, BR, ITR, MJS, GSB, JVH, EV, WW, UW, and RS declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose /objective: To promote best practice and quality of care, the Belgian College of Physicians for Radiotherapy Centers established a set of radiotherapy specific quality indicators for benchmarking on a national level. This paper describes the development, the collected QIs, the observed trends and the departments' evaluation of this initiative., Material and Methods: The Donabedian approach was used, focussing on structural, process and outcome QIs. The criteria for QI selection were availability, required for low-threshold regular collection, and applicability to guidelines and good practice. The QIs were collected yearly and individualized reports were sent out to all RT departments. In 2021, a national survey was held to evaluate the ease of data collection and submission, and the perceived importance and validity of the collected QIs., Results: 18 structural QI and 37 process and outcome parameters (n = 25 patients/pathology/department) were collected. The participation rate amounted to 95 % overall. The analysis gave a national overview of RT activity, resources, clinical practice and reported acute toxicities. The individualized reports allowed departments to benchmark their performance. The 2021 survey indicated that the QIs were overall easy to collect, relevant and reliable. The collection of acute recorded toxicities was deemed a weak point due to inter-observer variabilities and lack of follow-up time., Conclusion: QI collection on a national level is a valuable process in steering quality improvement initiatives. The feasibility and relevance was demonstrated with a high level of participation. The national initiative will continue to evolve as a quality monitoring and improvement tool., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Hypofractionated breast radiotherapy has been found to be equivalent to conventional fractionation in many clinical trials. Using data from the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Global Impact of Radiotherapy in Oncology survey, we identified preferences for hypofractionation in breast cancer across World Bank income groups and the perceived facilitators and barriers to its use., Materials and Methods: An international, electronic survey was administered to radiation oncologists from 2018 to 2019. Demographics, practice characteristics, preferred hypofractionation regimen for specific breast cancer scenarios, and facilitators and barriers to hypofractionation were reported and stratified by World Bank income groups. Variables associated with hypofractionation were assessed using multivariate logistic regression models., Results: One thousand four hundred thirty-four physicians responded: 890 (62%) from high-income countries (HICs), 361 (25%) from upper-middle-income countries (UMICs), 183 (13%) from low- and lower-middle-income countries (LLMICs). Hypofractionation was preferred most frequently in node-negative disease after breast-conserving surgery, with the strongest preference reported in HICs (78% from HICs, 54% from UMICs, and 51% from LLMICs, P < .001). Hypofractionation for node-positive disease postmastectomy was more frequently preferred in LLMICs (28% from HICs, 15% from UMICs, and 35% from LLMICs, P < .001). Curative doses of 2.1 to < 2.5 Gy in 15-16 fractions were most frequently reported, with limited preference for ultra-hypofractionation, but significant variability in palliative dosing. In adjusted analyses, UMICs were significantly less likely than LLMICs to prefer hypofractionation across all curative clinical scenarios, whereas respondents with > 1 million population catchments and with intensity-modulated radiotherapy were more likely to prefer hypofractionation. The most frequently cited facilitators and barriers were published evidence and fear of late toxicity, respectively., Conclusion: Preference for hypofractionation varied for curative indications, with greater acceptance in earlier-stage disease in HICs and in later-stage disease in LLMICs. Targeted educational interventions and greater inclusivity in radiation oncology clinical trials may support greater uptake.

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., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: To investigate the association between clinician-scored toxicities and patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in early-stage (ES-) and locally-advanced (LA-) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving loco-regional radiotherapy, included in the international real-world REQUITE study., Materials and Methods: Clinicians scored eleven radiotherapy-related toxicities (and baseline symptoms) with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. HRQoL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core HRQoL questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30). Statistical analyses used the mixed-model method; statistical significance was set at p = 0.01. Analyses were performed for baseline and subsequent time points up to 2 years after radiotherapy and per treatment modality, radiotherapy technique and disease stage., Results: Data of 435 patients were analysed. Pre-treatment, overall symptoms, dyspnea, chest wall pain, dysphagia and cough impacted overall HRQoL and specific domains. At subsequent time points, cough and dysphagia were overtaken by pericarditis in affecting HRQoL. Toxicities during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy and 3-dimensional radiotherapy had the most impact on HRQoL. Conversely, toxicities in sequential chemo-radiotherapy and SBRT had limited impact on patients' HRQoL. Stage impacts the correlations: LA-NSCLC patients are more adversely affected by toxicity than ES-NSCLC patients, mimicking the results of radiotherapy technique and treatment modality., Conclusion: Pre-treatment symptoms and acute/late toxicities variously impact HRQoL of ES- and LA-NSCLC patients undergoing different treatment approaches and radiotherapy techniques. Throughout the disease, dyspnea seems crucial in this association, highlighting the additional effect of co-existing comorbidities. Our data call for optimized radiotherapy limiting toxicities that may affect patients' HRQoL., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: 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., Methods: 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., Findings: 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., Interpretation: 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., Funding: No direct funding was used in this research., Competing Interests: Disclosures Brooke Wilson: none. Andrew Oar: none. Danielle Rodin: none. Freddie Bray: none. Jacques Ferlay: none. Alfredo Polo: none. Josep M Borras: none. Jean-Marc Bourque: none. Monica Malik: none. Fabio Ynoe de Moraes: FYM received honoraria from Astra Zeneca and IASLC outside the submitted work. FYM declares grants or contracts from CTAQ Queen’s University outside the current work. FYM has received consulting fees from Cancer em foco outside of the submitted work. Yolanda Lievens: none. Lisa Stevens: none. Eduardo Zubizarreta: none. Mei Ling Yap: none, (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests JB reports grants from the Spanish Research Institute Carlos III and AGAUR. YL reports consulting fees from AstraZeneca paid to Ghent University Hospital, and current grants for the ImmunoSABR study and HERO-VBHC chair paid to the Ghent University Hospital. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The geometrical accuracy of auto-segmentation using convolutional neural networks (CNNs) has been demonstrated. This study aimed to investigate the dose-volume impact of differences between automatic and manual OARs for locally advanced (LA) and peripherally located early-stage (ES) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)., Material and Methods: A single CNN was created for automatic delineation of the heart, lungs, main left and right bronchus, esophagus, spinal cord and trachea using 55/10/40 patients for training/validation/testing. Dice score coefficient (DSC) and 95th percentile Hausdorff distance (HD95) were used for geometrical analysis. A new treatment plan based on the auto-segmented OARs was created for each test patient using 3D for ES-NSCLC (SBRT, 3-8 fractions) and IMRT for LA-NSCLC (24-35 fractions). The correlation between geometrical metrics and dose-volume differences was investigated., Results: The average (±1 SD) DSC and HD95 were 0.82 ± 0.07 and 16.2 ± 22.4 mm, while the average dose-volume differences were 0.5 ± 1.5 Gy (ES) and 1.5 ± 2.8 Gy (LA). The geometrical metrics did not correlate with the observed dose-volume differences (average Pearson for DSC: -0.27 ± 0.18 (ES) and -0.09 ± 0.12 (LA); HD95: 0.1 ± 0.3 mm (ES) and 0.2 ± 0.2 mm (LA))., Conclusions: After post-processing, manual adjustments of automatic contours are only needed for clinically relevant OARs situated close to the tumor or within an entry or exit beam e.g., the heart and the esophagus for LA-NSCLC and the bronchi for ES-NSCLC. The lungs do not need to be checked further in detail., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Establishing a new radiation therapy (RT) setup is resource-intensive as it involves substantial capital costs and the recruitment of a skilled workforce. It is essential to incorporate health economic analysis that estimates recurring and nonrecurring expenses on the basis of the national and local needs, infrastructure, and future projections. RT costing exercises can be especially relevant for low- or middle-income countries (LMICs) with more than 70% of the global cancer burden, with access to < 20% of the available resources. This review article summarizes the scope of RT costing exercises in LMICs, the hurdles in conducting them, and possible ways to circumvent them. The purpose of performing costing studies in RT lies in their utility to improve the efficiency of the investment while at the same time helping to address the issues of uniformity and equitable distribution of resources. This will help assess the net benefit from RT in terms of utility and outcome-linked parameters like Quality-Adjusted Life Years. There are numerous barriers to conducting economic evaluations in LMICs, including the lack of national costing values for equipment, data on manpower salary, cost for public and private setups, and indirect costs. The situation is further complicated because of the nonuniform pay structure, lack of an organizational framework, robust real-world data on outcomes, and nonavailability of country-specific reference utility values. Collaborative national efforts are required to collect all elements required to perform health technology assessments. Information from the national and hospital databases can be made available in the public domain to ease access and broader adoption of health economic end points in routine care. Although resource-intensive at the onset, costing studies and health economic assessments are essential for improving the coverage and quality of RT in LMICs.

Background and Purpose: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews., Material and Methods: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models., Results: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy., Conclusion: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Josep M. Borras, Julieta Corral, Ajay Aggarwal, Riccardo Audisio, Josep Alfons Espinas, Josep Figueras, Peter Naredi, Dimitra Panteli, Nicolas Pourel, Joan Prades, Yolande Lievens. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Diagnosis of lung cancer requires histological examination of a tissue sample, which in turn requires an invasive procedure that cannot always be obtained. Circulating tumor DNA can be reliably detected in blood samples of advanced-stage lung cancer patients and might also be a minimally invasive alternative for early-stage lung cancer detection. We wanted to explore the potential of targeted deep sequencing as a test for the diagnosis of early-stage lung cancer in combination with imaging. Mutation detection on cell-free DNA from pretreatment plasma samples of 51 patients with operable non-small cell lung cancer was performed and results were compared with 12 control patients undergoing surgery for a non-malignant lung lesion. By using a variant allele frequency threshold of 1%, somatic variants were detected in 23.5% of patients with a median variant allele fraction of 3.65%. By using this threshold, we could almost perfectly discriminate early-stage lung cancer patients from controls. Our study results are discussed in the light of those from other studies. Notwithstanding the potential of today's techniques for the use of liquid biopsy-based cell-free DNA analysis, sensitivity of this application for early-stage lung cancer detection is currently limited by a biological background of somatic variants with low variant allele fraction.

Background and Purpose: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews., Material and Methods: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models., Results: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy., Conclusion: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 Josep M. Borras, Julieta Corral, Ajay Aggarwal, Riccardo Audisio, Josep Alfons Espinas, Josep Figueras, Peter Naredi, Dimitra Panteli, Nicolas Pourel, Joan Prades, Yolande Lievens. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Radiotherapy-induced toxicity may negatively impact health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This report investigates the impact of curative-intent radiotherapy on HRQoL and toxicity in early stage and locally-advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients treated with radiotherapy or chemo-radiotherapy enrolled in the observational prospective REQUITE study., Materials and Methods: HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire up to 2 years post radiotherapy. Eleven toxicities were scored by clinicians using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 4. Toxicity scores were calculated by subtracting baseline values. Mixed model analyses were applied to determine statistical significance (p ≤ 0.01). Meaningful clinical important differences (MCID) were determined for changes in HRQoL. Analysis was performed on the overall data, different radiotherapy techniques, multimodality treatments and disease stages., Results: Data of 510 patients were analysed. There was no significant change in HRQoL or its domains, except for deterioration in cognitive functioning (p = 0.01). Radiotherapy technique had no significant impact on HRQoL. The addition of chemotherapy was significantly associated with HRQoL over time (p <.001). Overall toxicity did not significantly change over time. Acute toxicities of radiation-dermatitis (p =.003), dysphagia (p =.002) and esophagitis (p <.001) peaked at 3 months and decreased thereafter. Pneumonitis initially deteriorated but improved significantly after 12 months (p =.011). A proportion of patients experienced meaningful clinically important improvements and deteriorations in overall HRQoL and its domains. In some patients, pre-treatment symptoms improved gradually., Conclusions: While overall HRQoL and toxicity did not change over time, some patients improved, whereas others experienced acute radiotherapy-induced toxicities and deteriorated HRQoL, especially physical and cognitive functioning. Patient characteristics, more so than radiotherapy technique and treatment modality, impact post-radiotherapy toxicity and HRQoL outcomes. This stresses the importance of considering the potential impact of radiotherapy on individuals' HRQoL, symptoms and toxicity in treatment decision-making., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: 2-[ 18 F]FDG PET/CT is of utmost importance for radiation treatment (RT) planning and response monitoring in lung cancer patients, in both non-small and small cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC). This topic has been addressed in guidelines composed by experts within the field of radiation oncology. However, up to present, there is no procedural guideline on this subject, with involvement of the nuclear medicine societies., Methods: A literature review was performed, followed by a discussion between a multidisciplinary team of experts in the different fields involved in the RT planning of lung cancer, in order to guide clinical management. The project was led by experts of the two nuclear medicine societies (EANM and SNMMI) and radiation oncology (ESTRO)., Results and Conclusion: This guideline results from a joint and dynamic collaboration between the relevant disciplines for this topic. It provides a worldwide, state of the art, and multidisciplinary guide to 2-[ 18 F]FDG PET/CT RT planning in NSCLC and SCLC. These practical recommendations describe applicable updates for existing clinical practices, highlight potential flaws, and provide solutions to overcome these as well. Finally, the recent developments considered for future application are also reviewed., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In "Joint EANM/SNMMI/ESTRO Practice Recommendations for the Use of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT External Beam Radiation Treatment Planning in Lung Cancer V1.0" clinical indications for PET-CT in (non-)small cell lung cancer are highlighted and selective nodal irradiation is discussed. Additionally, concepts about target definition, target delineation and treatment evaluation are reviewed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Ken Herrmann reports personal fees from Bayer, personal fees and other from Sofie Biosciences, personal fees from SIRTEX, non-financial support from ABX, personal fees from Adacap, personal fees from Curium, personal fees from Endocyte, grants and personal fees from BTG, personal fees from IPSEN, personal fees from Siemens Healthineers, personal fees from GE Healthcare, personal fees from Amgen, personal fees from Novartis, personal fees from ymabs, personal fees from Aktis Oncology, personal fees from Theragnostics, personal fees from Pharma15, outside the submitted work. - Rodney J. Hicks is on the Scientific Advisory Board of Telix Pharmaceuticals with any honoraria donated to his institution, he is a stock holder in this company, he is also an honorary Trustee of the International Cancer Imaging Society and honorary Board Member of Neuroendocrine Cancer Australia. - All the remaining authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

This observational cohort study investigates neurocognitive functioning (NCF) and its associations with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and patient-reported psychological toxicities in locally-advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer patients receiving loco-regional radiotherapy and/or systemic therapy. Objective NCF data was collected with six psychometrically validated neurocognitive tests. Subjective NCF was assessed with the cognitive domain of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items. Psychological toxicity data was collected with the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events. Meaningful clinical important differences were determined for changes in NCF. Univariate Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear models were used to determine statistical significance (p < 0.01). In total, 50 patients were recruited. At baseline, 13 (26%) patients had an impaired objective NCF. Over time, deterioration was seen in 11% (n = 3), 5% (n = 1) and 6% (n = 1) of patients at 2-3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. The OS of patients with a normal NCF at baseline was longer than those with an impaired baseline NCF (29.5 vs 17.1 months). No statistical significance has been reached between NCF and OS (p = .353) nor NCF and DFS (p = .251). Objective NCF was not correlated with subjective NCF (p = .193), nor anxiety (p = .504), depression (p = .513), memory problems (p = .813) and concentration problems (p = .813). Systemic treatment and loco-regional radiotherapy may have a temporarily negative impact on NCF in a small proportion of locally-advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Baseline NCF could be a predictor for OS., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2022 The Authors.)

Background and Purpose: 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., Materials and Methods: 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., Results: 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., Conclusion: Variability of mediastinal nodal TVD was reduced after providing the ProCaLung consensus guidelines. A qualitative review was essential for providing meaningful quantitative measures., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Y.L.: Personal fees from AstraZeneca (advisory board) and RaySearch (speaker fee), not related to this project. F.C., T.D., L.M., V.R., X.G., M.L.: None., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background/purpose: The increased use of hypofractionated radiotherapy changes department activity. While expected to be cost-effective, departments' fixed costs may impede savings. Understanding radiotherapy's cost-drivers, to what extent these are fixed and consequences of reducing activity can help to inform reimbursement strategies., Material/methods: We estimate the cost of radiotherapy provision, using time-driven activity-based costing, for five bone metastases treatment strategies, in a large NHS provider. We compare these estimations to reimbursement tariff and assess their breakdown by cost types: fixed (buildings), semi-fixed (staff, linear accelerators) and variable (materials) costs. Sensitivity analyses assess the cost-drivers and impact of reducing departmental activity on the costs of remaining treatments, with varying disinvestment assumptions., Results: The estimated radiotherapy cost for bone metastases ranges from 430.95€ (single fraction) to 4240.76€ (45 Gy in 25#). Provider costs align closely with NHS reimbursement, except for the stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) strategy (tariff exceeding by 15.3%). Semi-fixed staff costs account for 28.1-39.7% and fixed/semi-fixed equipment/space costs 38.5-54.8% of provider costs. Departmental activity is the biggest cost-driver; reduction in activity increasing cost, predominantly in fractionated treatments. Decommissioning linear accelerators ameliorates this, although can only be realised at equipment capacity thresholds., Conclusion: Hypofractionation is less burdensome to patients and long-term offers a cost-efficient mechanism to treat an increasing number of patients within existing capacity. As a large majority of treatment costs are fixed/semi-fixed, disinvestment is complex, within the life expectancy of a linac, imbalances between demand and capacity will result in higher treatment costs. With a per-fraction reimbursement, this may disincentivise delivery of hypofractionated treatments., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The role of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in stage III N2 NSCLC is controversial. We analyzed decision-making for PORT among European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer., Methods: Twenty-two experts were asked before and after presentation of the results of the LungART trial to describe their decision criteria for PORT in the management of pN+ NSCLC patients. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analyzed., Results: Following decision criteria were identified: extracapsular nodal extension, incomplete lymph node resection, multistation lymph nodes, high nodal tumor load, poor response to induction chemotherapy, ineligibility to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, performance status, resection margin, lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities. The LungART results had impact on decision-making and reduced the number of recommendations for PORT. The only clear indication for PORT was a R1/2 resection. Six experts out of ten who initially recommended PORT for all R0 resected pN2 patients no longer used PORT routinely for these patients, while four still recommended PORT for all patients with pN2. Fourteen experts used PORT only for patients with risk factors, compared to eleven before the presentation of the LungART trial. Four experts stated that PORT was never recommended in R0 resected pN2 patients regardless of risk factors., Conclusion: After presentation of the LungART trial results at ESMO 2020, 82% of our experts still used PORT for stage III pN2 NSCLC patients with risk factors. The recommendation for PORT decreased, especially for patients without risk factors. Cardiopulmonary comorbidities became more relevant in the decision-making for PORT., Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)