Search

The beneficial effects of protons are primarily based on reduction of low to intermediate radiation dose bath to normal tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume. Despite promise for reduced long-term toxicity, the percentage of cancer patients treated with proton therapy remains low. This is probably caused by technical improvements in planning and delivery of photon therapy, and by high cost, low availability and lack of high-level evidence on proton therapy. A number of proton treatment facilities are under construction or have recently opened; there are now two operational Scandinavian proton centres and two more are under construction, thereby eliminating the availability hurdle. Even with the advantageous physical properties of protons, there is still substantial ambiguity and no established criteria related to which patients should receive proton therapy. This topic was discussed in a session at the Nordic Collaborative Workshop on Particle Therapy, held in Uppsala 14–15 November 2019. This paper resumes the Nordic-Baltic perspective on proton therapy indications and discusses strategies to identify patients for proton therapy. As for indications, neoplastic entities, target volume localisation, size, internal motion, age, second cancer predisposition, dose escalation and treatment plan comparison based on the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle or normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were discussed. Importantly, the patient selection process should be integrated into the radiotherapy community and emphasis on collaboration across medical specialties, involvement of key decision makers and knowledge dissemination in general are important factors. An active Nordic-Baltic proton therapy organisation would also serve this purpose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the Nordic countries, as in the rest of the world, particle therapy as a radiotherapy modality, is evolving, albeit the hard evidence for the clinical benefit still is scarce. However, a common goal for the Nordic countries is to include a minimum of 80% of the patients treated with particle therapy into clinical trials. In this paper, we summarize the current status of clinical trials involving particle therapy in the Nordic countries, with an overview of both active and coming trials. So far, one is closed for inclusion and data are being analyzed, seven trials are actively recruiting patients and several more trials are underway. No common Nordic trial has yet been designed, nor is in the planning phase, and the authors will discuss the obstacles as well as the opportunities a common Nordic platform may represent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An editorial is presented on Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association (NARA) being established in 2007 by hip and knee arthroplasty registry leaders from Denmark, Norway, and Sweden. Topics include showing large dissimilarities between the participating countries coming to the practice of orthopedics; and reverse shoulder arthroplasty performed for rotator cuff tear arthropathy being low.

Good clinical research is often conducted in close collaboration between patients, the public, and researchers. Few studies have reported the development of patient and public involvement (PPI) in research outside the United States and the United Kingdom, and for patients with more aggressive cancers. The study aimed to describe and evaluate the development of PPI in oesophageal cancer survivorship research in Sweden by the use of a framework to support the process. Oesophageal cancer survivors were recruited to a PPI research collaboration at Karolinska Institutet, Sweden. The development process was supported by the use of a framework for PPI, 'Patient and service user engagement in research'. Insights, benefits, and challenges of the process were described and discussed among the collaborators. The collaboration resulted in joint publications with a more patient- and family-focussed perspective. It also contributed to the development of information folders about survivorship after oesophageal cancer surgery and national conference arrangements for patients, their families, healthcare workers, and researchers. Since the PPI contributors were represented in patient organisations and care programmes, the dissemination of research results increased. Their contributions were highly valued by the researchers, but also revealed some challenges. The use of a structured framework contributed to support and facilitated the process of establishing PPI in research collaboration. A genuine interest in establishing PPI in research and an understanding and respect for the patients' expertise in providing a unique inside perspective was imperative for a successful collaboration. Research focus should not only be on mortality and reductions in daily life, but also on positive outcomes. Using a framework supports development and avoids pitfalls of PPI collaboration. Patient partners were equal collaborators in all aspects of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]