Search

Introduction: We described the patterns of chemotherapy use and outcomes in patients diagnosed with stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) by age in England., Materials and Methods: In this retrospective population-based study, we included 20,716 (62% stage IV) patients with NSCLC diagnosed from 2014 to 2017 treated with chemotherapy. We used the Systemic Anti-Cancer Treatment (SACT) dataset to describe changes in treatment plan and estimated 30 and 90-day mortality rates and median, 6-, and 12-month overall survival (OS) using Kaplan Meier estimator for patients aged <75 and ≥ 75 by stage. Using flexible hazard regression models we assessed the impact of age, stage, treatment intent (stage III), and performance status on survival., Results: Patients aged ≥75 years were less likely to receive two or more regimens, more likely to have their treatment modified because of comorbidities and their doses reduced compared to younger patients. However, early mortality rates and overall survival were similar across ages, apart from the oldest patients with stage III disease., Discussion: This observational study demonstrates that age is associated with treatment patterns in an older population with advanced NSCLC in England. Although this reflects a pre-immunotherapy period, given the median age of NSCLC patients and increasingly older population, these results suggest older patients (>75 yrs) may benefit from more intense treatments., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest SP, EJAM, DD do not have any conflict to report. KNF reports the following: Active research funding/grant: Honoraria/Advisory Boards: AstraZeneca, Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol-Meyers-Squibb, Lilly, Roche and Takeda., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To investigate factors associated with the ability to receive adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with pathological N1 and N2 stage after anatomic lung resections for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Multicenter retrospective analysis on 707 consecutive patients found pathologic N1 (pN1) or N2 (pN2) disease following anatomic lung resections for NSCLC (2014-2019). Multiple imputation logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with adjuvant chemotherapy and to develop a model to predict the probability of starting this treatment. The model was externally validated in a population of 253 patients. In the derivation set, 442 patients were pN1 and 265 pN2. 58% received at least 1 cycle of adjuvant chemotherapy. The variables significantly associated with the probability of starting chemotherapy after multivariable regression analysis were: younger age (p < 0.0001), Body Mass Index (BMI) (p = 0.031), Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second (FEV1) (p = 0.037), better performance status (PS) (p < 0.0001), absence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) (p = 0.016), resection lesser than pneumonectomy (p = 0.010). The logit of the prediction model was: 6.58 -0.112 x age +0.039 x BMI +0.009 x FEV1 -0.650 x PS -1.388 x CKD -0.550 x pneumonectomy. The predicted rate of adjuvant chemotherapy in the validation set was 59.2 and similar to the observed 1 (59%, p = 0.87) confirming the model performance in external setting. This study identified several factors associated with the probability of initiating adjuvant chemotherapy after lung resection in node-positive patients. This information can be used during preoperative multidisciplinary meetings and patients counseling to support decision-making process regarding the timing of systemic treatment., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Engaging with patients when designing a clinical or research project is beneficial; feedback from the intended audience provides invaluable insight form the patients' perspective. Working with patients can result in developing successful research grants and interventions. The benefit of including the voice of the patient in the Yorkshire Cancer Research funded PREHABS study is described in this article., Methods: Patients were included in the PREHABS study from inception to completion. The Theory of Change methodology was used to provide a framework to implement patient feedback to refine the study intervention., Results: In total, 69 patients engaged with the PREHABS project. Two patients were recruited as co-applicants on the grant and were members on the Trial Management Group. Six patients attended the pre application workshop and provided feedback on their lived experiences of being a lung cancer patient. Commentary from the patients influenced the interventions selected and the design of the prehabs study. Following ethical approval (21/EE/0048) and informed written consent, 61 patients were recruited into the PREHABS study between October 2021 and November 2022. The breakdown of recruited patients was 19 males: mean age 69.1 years (SD 8.91) and 41 females; mean age 74.9 years (SD 8.9)., Conclusion: It is practicable and beneficial to include patients at all stages of designing and delivering a research study. Patient feedback can help refine the study interventions to allow for maximum acceptance, recruitment and retention., Implications for Practice: Including patients in the design of radiotherapy research studies can provide invaluable insight that can support the selection and delivery of interventions that are acceptable to the patient cohort., (Crown Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality; however, the most effective strategy for optimising participation is unknown. Here we present data from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial, including response to invitation, screening eligibility and uptake of community-based LDCT screening., Methods: Individuals aged 55-80 years, identified from primary care records as having ever smoked, were randomised prior to consent to invitation to telephone lung cancer risk assessment or usual care. The invitation strategy included general practitioner endorsement, pre-invitation and two reminder invitations. After telephone triage, those at higher risk were invited to a Lung Health Check (LHC) with immediate access to a mobile CT scanner., Results: Of 44 943 individuals invited, 50.8% (n=22 815) responded and underwent telephone-based risk assessment (16.7% and 7.3% following first and second reminders, respectively). A lower response rate was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.42-0.46) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.54-0.62 for the most versus the least deprived quintile). Of those responding, 34.4% (n=7853) were potentially eligible for screening and offered a LHC, of whom 86.8% (n=6819) attended. Lower uptake was associated with current smoking status (adjusted OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62-0.87) and socioeconomic deprivation (adjusted OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98). In total, 6650 individuals had a baseline LDCT scan, representing 99.7% of eligible LHC attendees., Conclusions: Telephone risk assessment followed by a community-based LHC is an effective strategy for lung cancer screening implementation. However, lower participation associated with current smoking status and socioeconomic deprivation underlines the importance of research to ensure equitable access to screening., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: P.A.J. Crosbie reports consulting fees and stock options from Everest Detection; lecture honoraria from AstraZeneca; designing a questionnaire for Novartis; and designing a study for North West eHealth; outside the submitted work. D. Baldwin reports lecture honoraria from MSD, AstraZeneca, Roche and BMS; outside the submitted work. K.N. Franks reports grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, AstraZeneca and CRUK/AstraZeneca; consulting fees from AstraZeneca; lecture honoraria and payment for expert testimony from AstraZeneca, Roche and Takeda; advisory board membership with Amgen, AstraZeneca, BMS, Lilley and Takeda; outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose., (Copyright ©The authors 2022.)

Lung cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the UK, with nearly 50 000 new cases diagnosed a year. Treatments for lung cancer have improved in recent years with the advent of new surgical and radiotherapy techniques and the increased use of immunotherapies. These advances have resulted in increasing numbers of patients surviving beyond the completion of their treatment. Lung cancer patients are now not dying from their cancer diagnosis, but from other co-existing pathologies. Lung cancer patients commonly present with multiple comorbidities. Mitigating the effects of poor lifestyles and changing behaviours may improve the efficacy of treatments, reduce side-effects and improve the quality of life for lung cancer patients. Published evidence supports the use of interventions to manage behavioural habits, to optimise the health of patients. There is no consensus as to what, when or how to embed these into the patient pathway. Supporting patients before, during and after their cancer treatments to increase activity, eat well and stop smoking have been seen to decrease side-effects and improve patient outcomes and wellbeing. The challenge is to provide a package of interventions that is acceptable to patients and fits within the patient pathway so as not to conflict with diagnostic and therapeutic activities. This article reviews where we are today with providing behavioural support to optimise the health of lung cancer patients undergoing treatment., (Copyright © 2022 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in the UK has expanded over the past decade, in part as the result of several UK clinical trials and a recent NHS England Commissioning through Evaluation programme. A UK SABR Consortium consensus for normal tissue constraints for SABR was published in 2017, based on the existing literature at the time. The published literature regarding SABR has increased in volume over the past 5 years and multiple UK centres are currently working to develop new SABR services. A review and update of the previous consensus is therefore appropriate and timely. It is hoped that this document will provide a useful resource to facilitate safe and consistent SABR practice., (Copyright © 2022 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background Therapeutic advances have reduced cardiovascular death rates in people with cardiovascular diseases (CVD). We aimed to define the rates of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular death in people with specified CVDs or accruing cardiovascular multimorbidity. Methods and Results We studied 493 280 UK residents enrolled in the UK Biobank cohort study. The proportion of deaths attributed to cardiovascular, cancer, infection, or other causes were calculated in groups defined by 9 distinct self-reported CVDs at baseline, or by the number of these CVDs at baseline. Poisson regression analyses were then used to define adjusted incidence rate ratios for these causes of death, accounting for sociodemographic factors and comorbidity. Of 27 729 deaths, 20.4% were primarily attributed to CVD, 53.6% to cancer, 5.0% to infection, and 21.0% to other causes. As cardiovascular multimorbidity increased, the proportion of cardiovascular and infection-related deaths was greater, contrasting with cancer and other deaths. Compared with people without CVD, those with 3 or more CVDs experienced adjusted incidence rate ratios of 7.0 (6.2-7.8) for cardiovascular death, 4.4 (3.4-5.6) for infection death, 1.5 (1.4-1.7) for cancer death, and 2.0 (1.7-2.4) for other causes of death. There was substantial heterogeneity in causes of death, both in terms of crude proportions and adjusted incidence rate ratios, among the 9 studied baseline CVDs. Conclusions Noncardiovascular death is common in people with CVD, although its contribution varies widely between people with different CVDs. Holistic and personalized care are likely to be important tools for continuing to improve outcomes in people with CVD.

Objectives: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for medically inoperable peripheral stage I nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Previous nonrandomised evidence supports SABR as an alternative to surgery, but high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence is lacking. The SABRTooth study aimed to establish whether a UK phase III RCT was feasible., Design and Methods: SABRTooth was a UK multicentre randomised controlled feasibility study targeting patients with peripheral stage I NSCLC considered to be at higher risk of surgical complications. 54 patients were planned to be randomised 1:1 to SABR or surgery. The primary outcome was monthly average recruitment rates., Results: Between July 2015 and January 2017, 318 patients were considered for the study and 205 (64.5%) were deemed ineligible. Out of 106 (33.3%) assessed as eligible, 24 (22.6%) patients were randomised to SABR (n=14) or surgery (n=10). A key theme for nonparticipation was treatment preference, with 43 (41%) preferring nonsurgical treatment and 19 (18%) preferring surgery. The average monthly recruitment rate was 1.7 patients against a target of three. 15 patients underwent their allocated treatment: SABR n=12, surgery n=3., Conclusions: We conclude that a phase III RCT randomising higher risk patients between SABR and surgery is not feasible in the National Health Service. Patients have pre-existing treatment preferences, which was a barrier to recruitment. A significant proportion of patients randomised to the surgical group declined and chose SABR. SABR remains an alternative to surgery and novel study approaches are needed to define which patients benefit from a nonsurgical approach., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: K.N. Franks has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: L. McParland has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Webster has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D.R. Baldwin has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: D. Sebag-Montefiore has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Evison has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Booton has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Faivre-Finn has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: B. Naidu has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Ferguson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Peedell has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M.E.J. Callister has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Kennedy has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Hewison has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: J. Bestall has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: W.M. Gregory has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Hall has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: F. Collinson has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: C. Olivier has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: R. Naylor has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: S. Bell has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: P. Allen has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: A. Sloss has nothing to disclose. Conflict of interest: M. Snee has nothing to disclose., (Copyright ©ERS 2020.)

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide and most patients are unsuitable for 'gold standard' treatment, which is concurrent chemoradiotherapy. CONCORDE is a platform study seeking to establish the toxicity profiles of multiple novel radiosensitisers targeting DNA repair proteins in patients treated with sequential chemoradiotherapy. Time-to-event continual reassessment will facilitate efficient dose-finding., 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., (© 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.)

Patients treated with curative-intent lung radiotherapy are in the group at highest risk of severe complications and death from COVID-19. There is therefore an urgent need to reduce the risks associated with multiple hospital visits and their anti-cancer treatment. One recommendation is to consider alternative dose-fractionation schedules or radiotherapy techniques. This would also increase radiotherapy service capacity for operable patients with stage I-III lung cancer, who might be unable to have surgery during the pandemic. Here we identify reduced-fractionation for curative-intent radiotherapy regimes in lung cancer, from a literature search carried out between 20/03/2020 and 30/03/2020 as well as published and unpublished audits of hypofractionated regimes from UK centres. Evidence, practical considerations and limitations are discussed for early-stage NSCLC, stage III NSCLC, early-stage and locally advanced SCLC. We recommend discussion of this guidance document with other specialist lung MDT members to disseminate the potential changes to radiotherapy practices that could be made to reduce pressure on other departments such as thoracic surgery. It is also a crucial part of the consent process to ensure that the risks and benefits of undergoing cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic and the uncertainties surrounding toxicity from reduced fractionation have been adequately discussed with patients. Furthermore, centres should document all deviations from standard protocols, and we urge all colleagues, where possible, to join national/international data collection initiatives (such as COVID-RT Lung) aimed at recording the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lung cancer treatment and outcomes., (Copyright © 2020 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: The majority of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) present with advanced disease and overall survival rates are poor. This article outlines the current and outstanding evidence for the use of multimodality treatment in this group of patients, including in combination with an increasing number of treatment options, such as immunotherapy and genotype-targeted small molecule inhibitors., Recent Findings: Optimal therapy for surgically resectable stage III disease remains debatable and currently the choice of treatment reflects each individual patient's disease characteristics and the expertise and opinion of the thoracic multi-disciplinary team. Evidence for a distinct oligometastatic state in which improved outcomes can be achieved remains minimal and there is as yet no consensus definition for oligometastatic lung cancer. Whilst there is supporting evidence for the aggressive management of isolated metastases, the use of consolidative therapy for multiple metastases remains unproven., Summary: Evolution of new RT technologies, improved surgical technique and a plethora of interventional-radiology-guided ablative therapies are widening the choice of available treatment modalities to patients with NSCLC. In the setting of resectable locally advanced disease and the oligometastatic state, there is a growing need for randomised comparison of the available treatment modalities to guide both treatment and patient selection., Competing Interests: Compliance with Ethics GuidelinesThe authors declare no conflicts of interest relevant to this manuscript.This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Background: Lung cancer is increasingly a disease of the elderly and frail population with a median age of 70 years at diagnosis. Therefore, consideration of the impact of interventions on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and not only absolute survival is especially important. For non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has been gaining popularity over the last few decades, replacing traditional open lobectomies. For high-risk patients who are not deemed suitable for surgery, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) provides a potentially curative alternative. However, little is known about how VATS and SABR affect HRQOL measured using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). The LiLAC study (Life after Lung Cancer) aims to explore HRQOL following intervention with VATS or SABR using validated PROMs and to pilot the use of an online questionnaire system (QTool) in this setting. We hope the results will aid both patients and clinicians in decision making and improve the management of post-intervention problems., Methods: In total, 300 patients (150 VATS and 150 SABR) patients will be recruited over the study period. Patients will be approached prior to intervention and asked to complete baseline HRQOL questionnaires. They will be given access to the QTool online system and then in the 12 months following intervention will be asked to complete questionnaires (paper or online) at 4-time points. Answers will available for patients and clinicians to view throughout the study period. Clinical information (age, gender, co-morbidity, current medications and smoking status along with treatment-specific information) will also be collected. Primary outcome will be to detect changes of PROs (HRQOL and patient satisfaction) after VATS lung resections or SABR in early stage lung cancer patients. Secondary outcomes include correlation of patient's clinical data with HRQOL results to identify predictors of poor outcomes and exploration of patient and clinician views on the usefulness of QOL measurements., Discussion: (I) This first study will primarily compare multiple patients reported outcomes for 12 months after VATS lobectomy and SABR in early stages NSCLC patients. We will explore the acceptability of an online assessment of the HRQOL in NSCLC patients. (II) The study is also focused on the patients' opinion during the shared decision-making process, which has rarely been investigated in surgical lung cancer patients. (III) This is not a randomised trial. As a consequence, inherent cohort selection bias and unknown or unaccounted confounders correlated with the outcome of interest may influence the results of the comparison between the treatment groups. (IV) LILAC is not looking at a direct comparison, but to depict the trajectory of recovery post-treatments and preservation or improvement of the HRQOL. This study has received ethical approval from NRES Yorkshire and the Humber- Leeds East Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 16/YH/0407). Results of this study will be shared with participating hospitals and made available to the academic community through submission for publication in international peer-reviewed journals and presentation at relevant national and international conferences., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02882750., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is being increasingly used for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of published randomised controlled trials. Planning studies and retrospective series have shown a decrease in known predictors of lung toxicity (V20 and mean lung dose) and the maximum spinal cord dose. Potential dosimetric advantages, accessibility of technology, a desire to escalate dose or a need to meet normal organ dose constraints are some of the factors recognised as supporting the use of IMRT. However, IMRT may not be appropriate for all patients being treated with radical radiotherapy. Unique problems with using IMRT for NSCLC include organ and tumour motion because of breathing and the potential toxicity from low doses of radiotherapy to larger amounts of lung tissue. Caution should be exercised as there is a paucity of prospective data regarding the efficacy and safety of IMRT in lung cancer when compared with three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and IMRT data from other cancer sites should not be extrapolated. This review looks at the use of IMRT in NSCLC, addresses the challenges and highlights the potential benefits of using this complex radiotherapy technique., (Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Lung stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a method of delivering high 'ablative' doses of radiotherapy to tumours in the lung. It was developed at the Karolinska Institute in the early 1990s using the methods established in cranial radiosurgery with multiple beams prescribed to an isodose and using a custom designed stereotactic body frame for immobilisation. Since then, aligned with the advances in radiotherapy technology and techniques (e.g. four-dimensional computed tomography simulation and image-guided radiotherapy), there has been a rapid increase in the use of lung SABR for both early stage lung cancer and lung metastases. For peripheral primary lung cancers less than 5 cm in diameter, high rates of local control and low levels of acute and late toxicity are consistently reported in the published literature. Compared with historical control rates of stage I lung cancers treated with conventionally fractionated radiotherapy, SABR seems to offer higher rates of local control, lower levels of acute toxicity and a better quality of life after treatment. However, the full results of randomised controlled trials of SABR versus conventionally fractionated are awaited and will provide higher-level evidence. For central lung tumours, very high SABR doses can be associated with significant toxicity. Dose-adapted fractionation schedules seem to have much lower rates of toxicity and prospective trials, including the completed RTOG 0813 study and the on-going EORTC LUNGTEC study, should provide further evidence of safety and establish organ at risk tolerances. SABR can also be used for tumours metastatic to the lung with high rates of local control and is a reasonable alternative to surgery in selected patients. Going forward, prospective trials are underway to establish the safety and efficacy of SABR in oligometastatic disease. Population-based outcomes will be crucial in supporting/establishing SABR as the treatment of choice in medically inoperable patients with peripheral stage I lung cancers. Randomised phase III trials will hopefully extend the evidence base and show the safety and the utility of SABR in early central tumours and oligometastatic disease., (Copyright © 2015 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The RARECARE project aims at increasing knowledge of rare cancers in Europe. This manuscript describes the epidemiology (incidence, prevalence, survival) of rare urogenital cancers, taking into account the morphological characterisation of these tumours., Methods: We used data gathered by RARECARE on cancer patients diagnosed from 1995 to 2002 and archived in 64 European population-based cancer registries, followed up to December 31st, 2003 or later., Results: The annual number of males that develop penile cancer in the EU is estimated at 3100, which is equivalent to an age standardised rate (ASR) of 12 per million males. The 5-year relative survival rate is 69%, while squamous cell carcinoma is the predominant morphological entity. Each year around 650 persons in the EU develop cancer of the urethra and 7200 develop cancer of the renal pelvis or ureter (RPU). The ASR for cancer of the urethra and RPU is 1.1 (males 1.6; females 0.6) and 12 (males 16; females 7) per million inhabitants, respectively. The 5-year relative survival rate for cancer of the urethra and RPU is 54% and 51%, respectively. Transitional cell carcinoma is the predominant morphological entity of cancer of the urethra and RPU., Conclusions: In view of the low number of cases and the fact that one third to one half of the patients die of their disease, centralisation of treatment of these rare tumours to a select number of specialist centres should be promoted., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: We studied the outcomes in patients with node positive penile cancer who received radiotherapy to inguinal and pelvic nodes. Although half of node positive cases are cured by lymphadenectomy, little data are available on the potential further benefits and toxicities of postoperative radiotherapy., Materials and Methods: We retrospectively audited the clinical notes and electronic records of 23 patients referred to a specialist center from 2002 to 2008 who received radiotherapy to the inguinal/pelvic nodes as adjuvant treatment after lymphadenectomy (14), or as high grade palliation for extensive/fixed nodes (8) or extensive local tumor (1). The primary outcome measure was overall survival. Secondary end points were locoregional recurrence-free survival and toxicity., Results: All 13 deaths were due to penile cancer. Patients with adjuvant therapy had better overall survival (66% vs 11%, p<0.001) and locoregional relapse-free survival (56% vs 22%, p=0.03) than those with high grade palliation. Six of 14 adjuvant cases and 7 of 9 with high grade palliation relapsed locoregionally. Of patients with adjuvant therapy and extracapsular spread 1 of 6 with N1, 1 of 4 with N2 and 3 of 4 with N3 disease relapsed (p=0.31). No life threatening toxicity was observed. It was difficult to determine the relative contributions of radiotherapy and surgery to leg/scrotal lymphedema. The study was limited by its small size, which reflects the rarity of this tumor., Conclusions: Adjuvant radiotherapy appears to have a role after inguinal lymphadenectomy, particularly in patients with extracapsular nodal spread, in whom historically survival rates have been poor. Our findings warrant further investigation in larger series of patients., (Copyright © 2011 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study evaluates the dosimetric impact of 4-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) target volumes and heterogeneity correction (HC) on target coverage, organ-at-risk (OAR) doses, and dose conformity in lung stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Twelve patients with lung cancer, scanned using both helical CT and 4DCT, were treated with SBRT (60 Gy in 3 fractions). The clinical plans were calculated without HC and based on targets from the free-breathing helical CT scan (PTV(HEL)). Retrospectively, the clinical plans were recalculated with HC and were evaluated based on targets from 4DCT datasets (PTV(4D)) accounting for patient-specific target motion. The PTV(4D) was greater than PTV(HEL) when tumor motion exceeded 7.5 mm (vector). There were significant decreases in target coverage (V100) for the recalculated vs. clinical plans (0.84 vs. 0.94, p < 0.02) for the same monitor units. When the recalculated plans were optimized for equivalent V100 of the clinical plans, there were significant increases in the 60-Gy dose spillage (1.27 vs. 1.13, p < 0.001) and 30-Gy dose spillage (5.20 vs. 3.73, p < 0.001) vs. the clinical plans. There was a significant increase (p < 0.04) in the mean OAR doses between the optimized re-calculated and the clinical plan. Tumor motion is an important consideration for target volumes defined using helical CT. Lower prescription doses may be required when prospectively planning with HC to achieve a similar level of toxicity and dose spillage as expected when planning based on homogeneous dose calculations., (2010 American Association of Medical Dosimetrists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is an effective treatment for medically inoperable Stage I non-small-cell lung cancer. However, changes in the patient's breathing patterns during the course of SBRT may result in a geographic miss or an overexposure of healthy tissues to radiation. However, the precise extent of these changes in breathing pattern is not well known. We evaluated the inter- and intrafractional changes in tumor motion amplitude (DeltaM) over an SBRT course., Methods and Materials: Eighteen patients received image-guided SBRT delivered in three fractions; this therapy was done with abdominal compression in four patients. For each fraction, cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) was performed for tumor localization (+/- 3-mm tolerance) and then repeated to confirm geometric accuracy. Additional CBCT images were acquired at the midpoint and end of each SBRT fraction. Respiration-correlated CBCT (rcCBCT) reconstructions allowed retrospective assessment of inter- and intrafractional DeltaM by a comparison of tumor displacements in all four-dimensional CT and rcCBCT scans. The DeltaM was measured in mediolateral, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions., Results: A total of 201 rcCBCT images were analyzed. The mean time from localization of the tumor to the end-fraction CBCT was 35 +/- 7 min. Compared with the motion recorded on four-dimensional CT, the mean DeltaM was 0.4, 1.0, and 0.4 mm, respectively, in the mediolateral, superior-inferior, and anterior-posterior directions. On treatment, the observed DeltaM was, on average, <1 mm; no DeltaM was statistically different with respect to the initial rcCBCT. However, patients in whom abdominal compression was used showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) in the variance of DeltaM with respect to the initial rcCBCT in the superior-inferior direction., Conclusions: The inter- and intrafractional DeltaM that occur during a course of lung SBRT are small. However, abdominal compression causes larger variations in the time spent on the treatment couch and in the inter- and intrafractional DeltaM values.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy is an emerging treatment option for peripheral non-small cell lung cancer in medically inoperable patients. With high dose per fraction radiotherapy, late side effects are of possible concern. In our initial cohort of 42 patients treated with 54 to 60 Gy in three fractions, nine patients have rib fracture. The median dose to rib fracture sites was 46 to 50 Gy, depending on the method of dose calculation. We describe a typical case of poststereotactic radiotherapy rib fracture and present dosimetric analysis of patients with rib fracture.

The aim of the study was to determine current U.K. neuro-oncology practice. A questionnaire was sent to all U.K. clinical oncologists who treat primary brain tumours. Results were distributed to these doctors with an invitation to attend a workshop in September 2000 to debate areas of differing practice and to review the existing related evidence. A further workshop was held in May 2002. The questionnaire responses and discussion of controversial areas, including the management of high-grade gliomas, low-grade gliomas, meningiomas, pituitary adenomas and multiple-brain metastases are included in this paper.