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 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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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.)

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 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.)

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.)

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.)

Radiotherapy interventions are rapidly evolving and improving, holding promise for better patient outcomes, yet at the possible detriment of higher societal costs. The ESTRO-HERO value-based radiotherapy project aims to develop a framework defining and assessing the value of radiotherapy innovations, to support clinical implementation and equitable access, within a sustainable healthcare system., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Multiple large trials have established the non-inferiority of hypofractionated radiotherapy compared to conventional fractionation. This study will determine real-world hypofractionation adoption across different geographic regions for breast, prostate, cervical cancer, and bone metastases, and identify barriers and facilitators to its use., Materials and Methods: An anonymous, electronic survey was distributed from January 2018 through January 2019 to radiation oncologists through the ESTRO-GIRO initiative. Predictors of hypofractionation were identified in univariable and multivariable regression analyses., Results: 2316 radiation oncologists responded. Hypofractionation was preferred in node-negative breast cancer following lumpectomy (82·2% vs. 46·7% for node-positive; p < 0.001), and in low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer (57·5% and 54·5%, respectively, versus 41·2% for high-risk (p < 0.001)). Hypofractionation was used in 32·3% of cervix cases in Africa, but <10% in other regions (p < 0.001). For palliative indications, hypofractionation was preferred by the majority of respondents. Lack of long-term data and concerns about local control and toxicity were the most commonly cited barriers. In adjusted analyses, hypofractionation was least common for curative indications amongst low- and lower-middle-income countries, Asia-Pacific, female respondents, small catchment areas, and in centres without access to intensity modulated radiotherapy., Conclusion: Significant variation was observed in hypofractionation across curative indications and between regions, with greater concordance in palliation. Using inadequate fractionation schedules may impede the delivery of affordable and accessible radiotherapy. Greater regionally-targeted and disease-specific education on evidence-based fractionation schedules is needed to improve utilization, along with best-case examples addressing practice barriers and supporting policy reform., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a common treatment option for brain metastases secondary to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the QUARTZ trial suggest that WBRT can be omitted in selected patients and treated with optimal supportive care alone. Nevertheless, WBRT is still widely used to treat brain metastases secondary to NSCLC. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for WBRT among European radiation oncology experts., Methods: Twenty-two European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) for previous projects and by the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) for lung cancer were asked to describe their strategies in the management of brain metastases of NSCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies., Results: Eight decision criteria (suitability for SRS, performance status, symptoms, eligibility for targeted therapy, extra-cranial tumour control, age, prognostic scores and "Zugzwang" (the compulsion to treat)) were identified. WBRT was recommended by a majority of the European experts for symptomatic patients not suitable for radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There was also a tendency to use WBRT in the ALK/EGFR/ROS1 negative NSCLC setting., Conclusion: Despite the results of the QUARTZ trial WBRT is still widely used among European radiation oncology experts., 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 © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radiotherapy (RT) plays a major role in the treatment of small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Therefore, the ACROP committee was asked by ESTRO to provide recommendations on target volume delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive (chemo)-radiotherapy (CRT), adjuvant RT for stages I-III SCLC and consolidation thoracic RT for stage IV disease. The aim of these guidelines is to standardise and optimise the process of RT treatment planning for clinical practice and prospective studies. The process for the development of the guidelines included the evaluation of a structured questionnaire followed by a consensus discussion, voting and writing process within the committee. Firstly, we provide recommendations for both the imaging to be performed as part of the diagnostic work-up and for the RT planning process. Secondly, recommendations are made for target volume delineation including delineation of the primary gross tumour volume (GTV) and lymph node GTV and clinical tumour volume (CTV) expansion in the context of definitive and adjuvant RT. With regard to internal target volume (ITV) and planning target volume (PTV) definitions, we make recommendations about the management of geometric uncertainties and target motion. Finally, we provide our opinions on organ at risk (OAR) delineation and organisational issues to be considered., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Introduction: In breast cancer patients, duration of illness and treatment have a negative impact on the quality of life. The duration of radiotherapy can be shortened by reducing the number of treatment fractions. In this study, the impact of an accelerated breast irradiation schedule in 5 fractions over 10 to 12 days on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was investigated and compared to a standard hypofractionation schedule of 15 fractions., Methodology: The study population was composed of 530 patients treated in 15 fractions and 196 patients treated in 5 fractions. Patients were included in different trials evaluating HRQoL. Radiotherapy-related items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 and Breast-Q questionnaires were evaluated by comparing baseline scores to scores at 2-4 weeks and 1 year after radiotherapy. Clinically important improvements and deteriorations of HRQoL were compared between the 2 radiation schedules., Results: Patients treated in 5 fractions show less deterioration of physical well-being 2-4 weeks after radiotherapy. One year after radiotherapy, the 5 fractions schedule results in more patients reporting a clinically important improvement in pain, arm and breast symptoms and future perspective., Conclusion: Radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 10-12 days results in more improvement and less deterioration of HRQoL than a 15 fractions schedule over 3 weeks., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Recognizing the rapidly increasing interest and evidence in using metastasis-directed radiotherapy (MDRT) for oligometastatic disease (OMD), ESTRO and ASTRO convened a committee to establish consensus regarding definitions of OMD and define gaps in current evidence., Methods: A systematic literature review focused on curative intent MDRT was performed in Medline, Embase and Cochrane. Subsequent consensus opinion, using a Delphi process, highlighted the current state of evidence and the limitations in the available literature., Results: Available evidence regarding the use of MDRT for OMD mostly derives from retrospective, single-centre series, with significant heterogeneity in patient inclusion criteria, definition of OMD, and outcomes reported. Consensus was reached that OMD is largely independent of primary tumour, metastatic location and the presence or length of a disease-free interval, supporting both synchronous and metachronous OMD. In the absence of clinical data supporting a maximum number of metastases and organs to define OMD, and of validated molecular biomarkers, consensus supported the ability to deliver safe and clinically meaningful radiotherapy with curative intent to all metastatic sites as a minimum requirement for defining OMD in the context of radiotherapy. Systemic therapy induced OMD was identified as a distinct state of OMD. High-resolution imaging to assess and confirm OMD is crucial, including brain imaging when indicated. Minimum common endpoints such as progression-free and overall survival, local control, toxicity and quality-of-life should be reported; uncommon endpoints as deferral of systemic therapy and cost were endorsed., Conclusion: While significant heterogeneity exists in the current OMD definitions in the literature, consensus was reached on multiple key questions. Based on available data, OMD can to date be defined as 1-5 metastatic lesions, a controlled primary tumor being optional, but where all metastatic sites must be safely treatable. Consistent definitions and reporting are warranted and encouraged in ongoing trials and reports generating further evidence to optimize patient benefits., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC., Results: In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided., Conclusion: This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: There is a steady rise in Stereotactic Body RadioTherapy (SBRT) utilization in oligometastatic disease (OMD). This may generate important financial consequences for radiotherapy budgets. The National Institute for Health and Disability Insurance of Belgium (NIHDI) initiated a coverage with evidence development (CED) project for innovative radiotherapy, including SBRT, in 2011. A cost calculation and budget estimation for SBRT in the OMD setting was carried out., Materials and Methods: Predictive growth scenarios for future uptake of SBRT for OMD in Belgium were developed using demographics and CED data. The provider cost of SBRT for OMD in Belgium was calculated using the Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing (TD-ABC) model developed by ESTRO-HERO, alimented with national data on resources, treatments and operational parameters, and compared to the new reimbursement. Combining these, the future financial impact of this novel treatment indication for healthcare providers and payers in Belgium was evaluated., Results: The number of 428 OMDs treated with SBRT in Belgium in 2017 is expected to increase between 484 and 2073 courses annually by 2025. A provider cost of €4360 per SBRT was calculated (range: €3488-€5654), whereas the reimbursement covers between €4139 and €4654. Large variations in potential extra provider costs by 2025 ensue from the different scenarios, ranging between €1,765,993 and €9,038,754. Provider costs and reimbursement show good agreement., Conclusion: Although the financial impact of SBRT for OMD in Belgium is forecasted to remain acceptable, even in extreme scenarios, further clinical trials and real-life clinical and financial monitoring with prospective data gathering are necessary to refine the data., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose/objective: A national incentive brought about the instauration of systematic clinical audits of all Belgian radiotherapy departments (n = 25) from 2011 to 2015 using the International Atomic Energy Agency QUATRO (Quality Improvement Quality Assurance Team for Radiation Oncology) methodology. The impact of these audits was evaluated and the emitted recommendations originating from the audit reports were analysed to identify areas of weakness on a national basis., Method: The QUATRO audits performed in each radiotherapy department gave rise to reports in which each department received a list of recommendations that it is free to implement. These audit reports were analyzed to identify common areas for which improvements were recommended. Moreover, questionnaires were sent to all departments in order to evaluate the overall usefulness of the recommendations as well as the relevancy and the actual impact of each individual recommendation., Results: Of the 381 emitted recommendations, 34% concerned process optimization of which a quarter involved process improvement and protocol development. Twenty-seven percent of the recommendations concerned infrastructure of which one-third was related to the quality of the equipment or facility. Nineteen and 20% of recommendations addressed department organisational and staff issues respectively. When analysing the departments' feedback questionnaires, 54% of the departments evaluated the audits' recommendations as being very useful. Furthermore, 42.7% of the recommendations were found to be very relevant and 23.5% were deemed to have an important impact., Conclusion: This first round of audits in Belgium allowed for the identification of common areas for improvements of practice in radiation oncology departments, with a focus on process optimization and infrastructure elements. Similarly, the audits' emitted recommendations were globally deemed very relevant. Encouraged, by this analysis, a second cycle of audits has started in Belgium with a modified version of the QUATRO document (B-QUATRO)., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose/objective: Health economic evaluations (HEE) are increasingly having an impact on policymakers, although the results greatly depend on the quality of the methodology used and on transparent reporting. The two main objectives of this study were to evaluate the quality of cost analyses of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and to assess the comprehensiveness and relevance of cost criteria defined in three validated quality-assessment instruments., Materials and Methods: The selection of articles was based on a previous systematic literature review of EBRT-costing studies retrieved from January 2004 to January 2015 (Period 1) in MEDLINE, Embase, and NHS-EED databases and completed in a second time period from January 2015 to November 2018 (Period 2). Three validated instruments to assess the methodology quality with the CHEC and the QHES, and the methodology with the CHEERS checklists were used. The quality was evaluated by both quantitative and qualitative analyses. The scoring robustness was examined with the Kendall coefficient of concordance and inter-class correlation coefficients., Results: In total, twenty-three articles were selected. The main geographic areas of cost analyses were Canada (n = 5), France (n = 4), and the USA (n = 4). The most commonly studied pathologies and technologies were prostate (n = 7) and head and neck cancer (n = 5) and IMRT (n = 8) and IGRT (n = 2), respectively. The mean instrument scores demonstrated a fair degree of methodological quality, with 69.7% for the CHEC, 73.6% for the QHES, as well as for the reporting quality, with 59.4% for CHEERS for Period 1 (74.4%, 71.5%, and 66.1%, respectively, for Period 2). An additional qualitative analysis per criterion revealed that certain items, essential for understanding the costing methodology and the results (e.g., the time horizon, discount rate, sensitivity analysis) were often only partially completed. Statistical analysis confirmed that the reviewers' scoring was consistent. The instruments identified the same top three articles, albeit with a degree of variation in the ranking., Conclusion: Qualitative and quantitative assessment of cost analyses in EBRT exhibits a fair level of study quality in terms of the methodology and reporting transparency. The impact of cost calculations on the final HEE result appears to be underestimated, and increased transparency of the data sources and the methodologies is needed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Health Economics in Radiation Oncology (ESTRO-HERO) project aims to provide a knowledge base for health economics in European radiotherapy. A cost-accounting model, providing data on national resource requirements and costs of external beam radiotherapy (EBRT), was developed., Materials and Methods: Time-driven activity-based costing (TD-ABC) was applied from the healthcare provider perspective at national level. TD-ABC allocates resource costs to treatment courses through the activities performed, based on time estimates., Results: The model is structured in three layers. The central layer, EBRT-Core, accounts for EBRT care-pathway activities and follows TD-ABC allocation principles. Activities supporting radiation oncology (RO) (RO-Support) and multidisciplinary oncology (Beyond-EBRT) follow standard allocation principles. To demonstrate the model's capabilities, a dataset was constructed for the hypothetical country Europalia, based on published evidence on resources and treatments, whereas time estimates were expert opinions. Applying the TD-ABC model to this example, treatment delivery activities represent 68.4% of the costs; treatment preparation 31.6%. The cost per course shows large variation for different indications, techniques, and fractionation schedules, ranging between €838 and €7193. Resource utilization was estimated to be within the available capacity. Scenario analyses on changes in fractionation and treatment complexity are presented. The ESTRO-HERO TD-ABC tool can model EBRT costs and resource requirements. While the Europalia example illustrates its potential, the results cannot be generalized nor used as a proxy for national evidence. Only real-world data, tailored to the specificities of individual countries, will support National Radiation Oncology Societies with investment planning and access to innovative radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radiation oncology has seen considerable change since ESTRO adopted its previous vision statement, less than 10 years ago. The Society has now formulated a new vision for 2030, which remains dedicated to its mission, whilst adapting to evolving contexts and the transforming landscape. Aligning with the new vision, ESTRO has developed strategic priorities for the coming years. This document, written on behalf of the Board and its leadership, describes ESTRO's strategic focus on translating science and evidence into practice, supporting professional development in the discipline, further strengthening the Society and on embracing an active policy-role., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The prognostic value of radiomics for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients has been investigated for images acquired prior to treatment, but no prognostic model has been developed that includes the change of radiomic features during treatment. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the potential added prognostic value of a longitudinal radiomics approach using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) for NSCLC patients., Materials and Methods: This retrospective study includes a training dataset of 141 stage I-IV NSCLC patients and three external validation datasets of 94, 61 and 41 patients, all treated with curative intended (chemo)radiotherapy. The change of radiomic features extracted from CBCT images was summarized as the slope of a linear regression. The CBCT slope-features and CT-extracted features were used as input for a Cox proportional hazards model. Moreover, prognostic performance of clinical parameters was investigated for overall survival and locoregional recurrence. Model performances were assessed using the Kaplan-Meier curves and c-index., Results: The radiomics model contained only CT-derived features and reached a c-index of 0.63 for overall survival and could be validated on the first validation dataset. No model for locoregional recurrence could be developed that validated on the validation datasets. The clinical parameters model could not be validated for either overall survival or locoregional recurrence., Conclusion: In this study we could not confirm our hypothesis that longitudinal CBCT-extracted radiomic features contribute to improved prognostic information. Moreover, performance of baseline radiomic features or clinical parameters was poor, probably affected by heterogeneity within and between datasets., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The overarching aim of work package 1 of the European Proton Therapy Network (EPTN) is to create a firm basis for evidence-based particle therapy at the European level. To achieve this, this work package will set up a worldwide unique prospective data registration programme for nine different tumour sites. Such programme will provide more insights into the current practice across all European particle therapy centres and into the results of particle therapy with regard to radiation-induced toxicity and efficacy in terms of local control and survival. More importantly, prospective data registration provides major opportunities to continuously improve the quality of particle therapy, by defining bench marks, to identify best practices that may learn others to improve quality of particle therapy, to synchronize selection criteria and to create more homogeneous patient cohorts to evaluate results, which is particularly important in rare tumours. This will be supported by EORTC through existing and new IT-infrastructure for data collection in different formats next to QA-platforms. In addition, work package 1 will define the requirements for high quality clinical trials in order to enhance high quality clinical trial proposals and determine alternative methods for RCT, such as the model-based approach., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the light of scarce resources to be allocated for cancer care and a steady stream of costly innovations in all modalities applied to treat cancer, particle therapy needs to demonstrate its cost-utility balance to allow its positioning in the context of competing modalities. In the continuous evolving particle therapy landscape, the timely availability of appropriate economic data is crucial., Methods: Economic data collection and compilation for particle therapy needs to follow health economic standards. Costing related analyses particularly need attention as clinical outcome data follow international standards to provide comparability. Among others, perspective, time horizons and cost categories are critical., Results: In this report from the "Health Economics Work Package" of the European Particle Therapy Network, the approaches commonly applied in health economic assessments are described and tailored to the specific needs of particle therapy. Data collection for cost calculation, economic evaluation and budget impact analysis are discussed., Conclusion: The presented data are intended to serve as a guidance for economic data collection, bearing in mind that in each specific case, the heterogeneous requirements of national health systems will need to be considered and assessments adapted accordingly., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Radiotherapy (RT) plays a major role in the curative treatment of locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therefore, the ACROP committee was asked by the ESTRO to provide recommendations on target volume delineation for standard clinical scenarios in definitive (chemo)radiotherapy (RT) and adjuvant RT for locally advanced NSCLC. The guidelines given here are a result of the evaluation of a structured questionnaire followed by a consensus discussion, voting and writing procedure within the committee. Hence, we provide advice for methods and time-points of diagnostics and imaging before the start of treatment planning and for the mandatory and optional imaging to be used for planning itself. Concerning target volumes, recommendations are given for GTV delineation of primary tumour and lymph nodes followed by issues related to the delineation of CTVs for definitive and adjuvant radiotherapy. In the context of PTV delineation, recommendations about the management of geometric uncertainties and target motion are given. We further provide our opinions on normal tissue delineation and organisational and responsibility questions in the process of target volume delineation. This guideline intends to contribute to the standardisation and optimisation of the process of RT treatment planning for clinical practice and prospective studies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The optimal number of radiotherapy fractions is a relevant input for planning resource needs. An estimation of the total number of fractions by country and tumour site is assessed for 2012 and 2025., Methods: European cancer incidence data by tumour site and country for 2012 and 2025 were extracted from the GLOBOCAN database. Incidence and stage data were introduced in the Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) model, producing an evidence-based proportion of incident cases with an indication for radiotherapy and fractions by indication. An indication was defined as a clinical situation in which radiotherapy was the treatment of choice., Results: The total number of fractions if radiotherapy was given according to guidelines to all patients with an indication in Europe was estimated to be 30 million for 2012; with a forecasted increase of 16.1% by 2025, yet with differences by country and tumour. The average number of fractions per course was 17.6 with a small range of differences following stage at diagnosis. Among the treatments with radical intent the average was 24 fractions, while it decreased to 2.5 among palliative treatments., Discussion: An increase in the total number of fractions is expected in many European countries in the coming years following the trends in cancer incidence. In planning radiotherapy resources, these increases should be balanced to the evolution towards hypofractionation, along with increased complexity and quality assurance., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: A series of health economic evaluations (HEE) has analysed the efficiency of new fractionation schedules and techniques for adjuvant breast radiotherapy. This overview assembles the available evidence and evaluates to what extent HEE-results can be compared., Methods: Based on a systematic literature review of HEEs from 1/1/2000 to 30/10/2016, all cost comparison (CC) and cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) comparing different adjuvant breast radiotherapy approaches were analysed. Costs were extracted and converted to Euro 2016 and costs per QALY were summarized in cost-effectiveness planes., Results: Twenty-four publications are withheld, comparing different fractionation schedules and/or irradiation techniques or evaluating the value of adding radiotherapy. Normofractionation and intensity-modulated, interstitial or intraluminal techniques are important cost-drivers. Highest reimbursements are observed in the US, but may overestimate the real cost. Hypofractionation is cost-effective compared to normofractionation, the results of partial breast irradiation are less unequivocal. Intra-operative and external beam approaches seem the most cost-effective for favourable risk groups, but whole breast irradiation is superior in terms of health effect and omission of radiotherapy in terms of costs., Conclusion: Hypofractionation may be considered the most relevant comparator for new strategies in adjuvant breast radiotherapy, with omission of radiotherapy as an interesting alternative in the very favourable subcategories, especially for partial breast techniques. Although comparison of CC and CEA is hampered by the variability in clinical and economic settings, HEE-based evidence can guide decision-making to tailor-made strategies, allocating the optimal treatment in terms of effectiveness as well as efficiency to the right indication., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evolving practice in adjuvant breast radiotherapy inevitably impacts healthcare budgets. This is reflected in a rise of health economic evaluations (HEE) in this domain. The available HEE literature was analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using available instruments., Methods: HEEs published between 1/1/2000 and 31/10/2016 were retrieved through a systematic search in Medline, Cochrane and Embase. A quality-assessment using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards) was translated into a quantitative score and compared with Tufts Medical Centre CEA registry and Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) results., Results: Twenty cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and thirteen cost comparisons (CC) were analysed. In qualitative evaluation, valuation or justification of data sources, population heterogeneity and discussion on generalizability, in addition to declaration on funding, were often absent or incomplete. After quantification, the average CHEERS-scores were 74% (CI 66.9-81.1%) and 75.6% (CI 70.7-80.5%) for CEAs and CCs respectively. CEA-scores did not differ significantly from Tufts and QHES-scores., Conclusion: Quantitative CHEERS evaluation is feasible and yields comparable results to validated instruments. HEE in adjuvant breast radiotherapy is of acceptable quality, however, further efforts are needed to improve comprehensive reporting of all data, indispensable for assessing relevance, reliability and generalizability of results., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: With increasing recognition of growing cancer incidence globally, efficient means of expanding radiotherapy capacity is imperative, and understanding the factors impacting human and financial needs is valuable., Materials and Methods: A time-driven activity-based costing analysis was performed, using a base case of 2-machine departments, with defined cost inputs and operating parameters. Four income groups were analysed, ranging from low to high income. Scenario analyses included department size, operating hours, fractionation, treatment complexity, efficiency, and centralised versus decentralised care., Results: The base case cost/course is US$5,368 in HICs, US$2,028 in LICs; the annual operating cost is US$4,595,000 and US$1,736,000, respectively. Economies of scale show cost/course decreasing with increasing department size, mainly related to the equipment cost and most prominent up to 3 linacs. The cost in HICs is two or three times as high as in U-MICs or LICs, respectively. Decreasing operating hours below 8h/day has a dramatic impact on the cost/course. IMRT increases the cost/course by 22%. Centralising preparatory activities has a moderate impact on the costs., Conclusions: The results indicate trends that are useful for optimising local and regional circumstances. This methodology can provide input into a uniform and accepted approach to evaluating the cost of radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Although economic evidence is becoming mandatory to support health care decision-making, challenges remain in generating high quality cost data, especially for complex and rapidly evolving treatment modalities, such as radiotherapy. The overall aim of this systematic literature review was to critically analyse the type and quality of radiotherapy cost information available in cost calculation studies, from the health care provider's perspective, published since 1981. A selection process, based on strict and explicit criteria, yielded 52 articles. In spite of meeting our criteria these studies displayed large heterogeneity in scope, costing method, inputs and outputs. The limited use of conventional costing methodologies along with insufficient information on resource inputs hampered comparability across studies. A consistent picture of radiotherapy costs, based on methodologically sound costing studies, has yet to emerge. These results call for developing a well-defined and generally accepted cost methodology for performing economic evaluation studies in radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of this HERO study was to assess the number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy by 2025., Methods: European cancer incidence data by tumor site and country for 2012 and 2025 was extracted from the GLOBOCAN database. The projection of the number of new cases took into account demographic factors (age and size of the population). Population based stages at diagnosis were taken from four European countries. Incidence and stage data were introduced in the Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) model., Results: Among the different tumor sites, the highest expected relative increase by 2025 in treatment courses was prostate cancer (24%) while lymphoma (13%), head and neck (12%) and breast cancer (10%) were below the average. Based on the projected cancer distributions in 2025, a 16% expected increase in the number of radiotherapy treatment courses was estimated. This increase varied across European countries from less than 5% to more than 30%., Conclusion: With the already existing disparity in radiotherapy resources in mind, the data provided here should act as a leverage point to raise awareness among European health policy makers of the need for investment in radiotherapy., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The absolute number of new cancer patients that will require at least one course of radiotherapy in each country of Europe was estimated., Material and Methods: The incidence and relative frequency of cancer types from the year 2012 European Cancer Observatory estimates were used in combination with the population-based stage at diagnosis from five cancer registries. These data were applied to the decision trees of the evidence-based indications to calculate the Optimal Utilization Proportion (OUP) by tumour site., Results: In the minimum scenario, the OUP ranged from 47.0% in the Russian Federation to 53.2% in Belgium with no clear geographical pattern of the variability among countries. The impact of stage at diagnosis on the OUP by country was rather limited. Within the 24 countries where data on actual use of radiotherapy were available, a gap between optimal and actual use has been observed in most of the countries., Conclusions: The actual utilization of radiotherapy is significantly lower than the optimal use predicted from the evidence based estimates in the literature. This discrepancy poses a major challenge for policy makers when planning the resources at the national level to improve the provision in European countries., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The impact of differences in the distribution of major cancer sites and stages at diagnosis among 4 European countries on the optimal utilization proportion (OUP) of patients who should receive external beam radiotherapy was assessed within the framework of the ESTRO-HERO project., Materials and Methods: Data from Australian Collaboration for Cancer Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CCORE) were used. Population based stages at diagnosis from the cancer registries of Belgium, Slovenia, the Greater Poland region of Poland, and The Netherlands were used to assess the OUP for each country. A sensitivity analysis was carried out., Results: The overall OUP by country varied from the lowest of 48.3% in Australia to the highest of 53.4% in Poland; among European countries the variation was limited to 3%. Cancer site specific OUPs showed differences according to the variability in stage at diagnosis across countries. The most important impact on the OUP by country was due to changes in relative frequency of tumours rather than stage at diagnosis., Conclusions: This methodology can be adapted using European data, thus facilitating the planning of resources required to cope with the demand for radiotherapy in Europe, taking into account the national variability in cancer incidence., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Cardiac disease has been related to heart dose after left-sided breast radiotherapy. This trial evaluates the heart sparing ability and feasibility of deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) in the prone position for left-sided whole breast irradiation (WBI)., Materials and Methods: Twelve patients underwent CT-simulation in supine shallow breathing (SB), supine DIBH, prone SB and prone DIBH. A validation cohort of 38 patients received prone SB and prone DIBH CT-scans; the last 30 patients were accepted for prone DIBH treatment. WBI was planned with a prescription dose of 40.05 Gy., Results: DIBH was able to reduce (p<0.001) heart dose in both positions, with results for prone DIBH at least as favorable as for supine DIBH. Mean heart dose was lowered from 2.2 Gy for prone SB to 1.3 Gy for prone DIBH (p<0.001), while preserving the lung sparing ability of prone positioning. Moreover prone DIBH nearly consistently reduced mean heart dose to less then 2 Gy, regardless of breast volume. All patients were able to perform the simulation procedure, 28/30 patients were treated with prone DIBH., Conclusions: This trial demonstrates the ability and feasibility of prone DIBH to acquire optimal heart and lung sparing for left-sided WBI., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: In planning to meet evidence based needs for radiotherapy, guidelines for the provision of capital and human resources are central if access, quality and safety are not to be compromised. A component of the ESTRO-HERO (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology) project is to document the current availability and content of guidelines for radiotherapy in Europe., Materials and Methods: An 84 part questionnaire was distributed to the European countries through their national scientific and professional radiotherapy societies with 30 items relating to the availability of guidelines for equipment and staffing and selected operational issues. Twenty-nine countries provided full or partial evaluable responses., Results: The availability of guidelines across Europe is far from uniform. The metrics used for capital and human resources are variable. There seem to have been no major changes in the availability or specifics of guidelines over the ten-year period since the QUARTS study with the exception of the recent expansion of RTT staffing models. Where comparison is possible it appears that staffing for radiation oncologists, medical physicists and particularly RTTs tend to exceed guidelines suggesting developments in clinical radiotherapy are moving faster than guideline updating., Conclusion: The efficient provision of safe, high quality radiotherapy services would benefit from the availability of well-structured guidelines for capital and human resources, based on agreed upon metrics, which could be linked to detailed estimates of need., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Documenting the distribution of radiotherapy departments and the availability of radiotherapy equipment in the European countries is an important part of HERO - the ESTRO Health Economics in Radiation Oncology project. HERO has the overall aim to develop a knowledge base of the provision of radiotherapy in Europe and build a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. The aim of the current report is to describe the distribution of radiotherapy equipment in European countries., Methods: An 84-item questionnaire was sent out to European countries, principally through their national societies. The current report includes a detailed analysis of radiotherapy departments and equipment (questionnaire items 26-29), analyzed in relation to the annual number of treatment courses and the socio-economic status of the countries. The analysis is based on validated responses from 28 of the 40 European countries defined by the European Cancer Observatory (ECO)., Results: A large variation between countries was found for most parameters studied. There were 2192 linear accelerators, 96 dedicated stereotactic machines, and 77 cobalt machines reported in the 27 countries where this information was available. A total of 12 countries had at least one cobalt machine in use. There was a median of 0.5 simulator per MV unit (range 0.3-1.5) and 1.4 (range 0.4-4.4) simulators per department. Of the 874 simulators, a total of 654 (75%) were capable of 3D imaging (CT-scanner or CBCT-option). The number of MV machines (cobalt, linear accelerators, and dedicated stereotactic machines) per million inhabitants ranged from 1.4 to 9.5 (median 5.3) and the average number of MV machines per department from 0.9 to 8.2 (median 2.6). The average number of treatment courses per year per MV machine varied from 262 to 1061 (median 419). While 69% of MV units were capable of IMRT only 49% were equipped for image guidance (IGRT). There was a clear relation between socio-economic status, as measured by GNI per capita, and availability of radiotherapy equipment in the countries. In many low income countries in Southern and Central-Eastern Europe there was very limited access to radiotherapy and especially to equipment for IMRT or IGRT., Conclusions: The European average number of MV machines per million inhabitants and per department is now better in line with QUARTS recommendations from 2005, but the survey also showed a significant heterogeneity in the access to modern radiotherapy equipment in Europe. High income countries especially in Northern-Western Europe are well-served with radiotherapy resources, other countries are facing important shortages of both equipment in general and especially machines capable of delivering high precision conformal treatments (IMRT, IGRT)., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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

Purpose: To test the hypothesis that cardiac comorbidity before the start of radiotherapy (RT) is associated with an increased risk of radiation-induced lung toxicity (RILT) in lung cancer patients., Material and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed of a prospective cohort of 259 patients with locoregional lung cancer treated with definitive radio(chemo)therapy between 2007 and 2011 (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00572325 and NCT00573040). We defined RILT as dyspnea CTCv.3.0 grade ≥2 within 6 months after RT, and cardiac comorbidity as a recorded treatment of a cardiac pathology at a cardiology department. Univariate and multivariate analyses, as well as external validation, were performed. The model-performance measure was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC)., Results: Prior to RT, 75/259 (28.9%) patients had cardiac comorbidity, 44% of whom (33/75) developed RILT. The odds ratio of developing RILT for patients with cardiac comorbidity was 2.58 (p<0.01). The cross-validated AUC of a model with cardiac comorbidity, tumor location, forced expiratory volume in 1s, sequential chemotherapy and pretreatment dyspnea score was 0.72 (p<0.001) on the training set, and 0.67 (p<0.001) on the validation set., Conclusion: Cardiac comorbidity is an important risk factor for developing RILT after definite radio(chemo)therapy of lung cancer patients., (Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

New evidence based regimens and novel high precision technology have reinforced the important role of radiotherapy in the management of cancer. Current data estimate that more than 50% of all cancer patients would benefit from radiotherapy during the course of their disease. Within recent years, the radiotherapy community has become more than conscious of the ever-increasing necessity to come up with objective data to endorse the crucial role and position of radiation therapy within the rapidly changing global oncology landscape. In an era of ever expanding health care costs, proven safety and effectiveness is not sufficient anymore to obtain funding, objective data about cost and cost-effectiveness are nowadays additionally requested. It is in this context that ESTRO is launching the HERO-project (Health Economics in Radiation Oncology), with the overall aim to develop a knowledge base and a model for health economic evaluation of radiation treatments at the European level. To accomplish these objectives, the HERO project will address needs, accessibility, cost and cost-effectiveness of radiotherapy. The results will raise the profile of radiotherapy in the European cancer management context and help countries prioritizing radiotherapy as a highly cost-effective treatment strategy. This article describes the different steps and aims within the HERO-project, starting from evidence on the role of radiotherapy within the global oncology landscape and highlighting weaknesses that may undermine this position., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To quantify changes in radiotherapy costs occurring in a decade of medical-technological evolution., Materials and Methods: The activity-based costing (ABC) model of the University Hospitals Leuven (UHL) radiotherapy (RT) department was adapted to current RT standards. It allocated actual resource costs to the treatments based on the departmental work-flow and patient mix in 2009. A benchmark with the former model analyzed the cost increases related to changes in RT infrastructure and practice over 10 years., Results: A considerable increase in total RT costs was observed, resulting from higher capital investments (96%) and personnel cost (103%), the latter dominating the total picture. Treatment delivery remains the most costly activity, boosted by the cost of improved quality assurance (QA), 23% of total product costs, coming along with more advanced RT techniques. Hence, cost increases at the product level are most obvious for complex treatments, such as intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), representing cost increases ranging between 38% and 88% compared to conformal approaches., Conclusions: The ABC model provides insight into the financial consequences of evolving technology and practice. Such data are a mandatory first step in our strive to prove RT cost-effectiveness and thus support optimal reimbursement and provision of radiotherapy departments., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: Innovative therapies are not only characterized by major uncertainties regarding clinical benefit and cost but also the expected recruitment of patients. An original model was developed to simulate patient recruitment to a costly particle therapy by varying layout of the facility and patient referral (one vs. several countries) and by weighting the treated indication by the expected benefit of particle therapy., Material and Methods: A multi-step probabilistic spatial model was used to allocate patients to the optimal treatment strategy and facility taking into account the estimated therapeutic gain from the new therapy for each tumour type, the geographical accessibility of the facilities and patient preference. Recruitment was simulated under different assumptions relating to the demand and supply., Results: Extending the recruitment area, reducing treatment capacity, equipping all treatment rooms with a carbon ion gantry and inclusion of proton protocols in carbon ion facilities led to an increased proportion of indications with the highest expected benefit. Assuming the existence of a competing carbon ions facility, lower values of therapeutic gain, and a greater unwillingness of patients to travel for treatment increased the proportion of indications with low expected benefit., Conclusions: Modelling patient recruitment may aid decision-making when planning new and expensive treatments., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: The purpose of this review is to evaluate the methodology used in published phase I radiotherapy (RT) dose escalation trials. A specific emphasis was placed on the frequency of reporting late complications as endpoint., Materials and Methods: We performed a systematic literature review using a predefined search strategy to identify all phase I trials reporting on external radiotherapy dose escalation in cancer patients., Results: Fifty-three trials (phase I: n = 36, phase I-II: n = 17) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Of these, 20 used a modified Fibonacci design for the RT dose escalation, but 32 did not specify a design. Late toxicity was variously defined as > 3 months (n = 43) or > 6 months (n = 3) after RT, or not defined (n = 7). In only nine studies the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was related to late toxicity, while only half the studies reported the minimum follow-up period for dose escalation (n = 26)., Conclusion: In phase I RT trials, late complications are often not taken into account and there is currently no consensus on the methodology used for radiation dose escalation studies. We therefore propose a decision-tree algorithm which depends on the endpoint selected and whether a validated early surrogate endpoint is available, in order to choose the most appropriate study design., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This planning study in Hodgkin's disease confirmed smaller irradiated volumes and subsequently lower doses to lungs, heart and breasts for involved node radiotherapy compared to involved field irradiation. However, shifting the arms from alongside the body to above the head offsets the observed benefit on dose to heart and breasts., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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