Search

Abstract: Purpose: The aim of this study was to measure and improve the quality of target volume delineation by means of national consensus on target volume definition in early-stage rectal cancer. Methods and materials: The CTV’s for eight patients were delineated by 11 radiation oncologists in 10 institutes according to local guidelines (phase 1). After observer variation analysis a workshop was organized to establish delineation guidelines and a digital atlas, with which the same observers re-delineated the dataset (phase 2). Variation in volume, most caudal and cranial slice and local surface distance variation were analyzed. Results: The average delineated CTV volume decreased from 620 to 460cc (p <0.001) in phase 2. Variation in the caudal CTV border was reduced significantly from 1.8 to 1.2cm SD (p =0.01), while it remained 0.7cm SD for the cranial border. The local surface distance variation (cm SD) reduced from 1.02 to 0.74 for anterior, 0.63 to 0.54 for lateral, 0.33 to 0.25 for posterior and 1.22 to 0.46 for the sphincter region, respectively. Conclusions: The large variation in target volume delineation could significantly be reduced by use of consensus guidelines and a digital delineation atlas. Despite the significant reduction there is still a need for further improvement. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated., Methods: Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data., Results: In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87-0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12-0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05-1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8-91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy., Conclusions: There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To update the analysis of the Dutch dose-escalation trial of radiotherapy for prostate cancer., Patients and Methods: A total of 669 patients with localized prostate cancer were randomly assigned to receive 68 or 78 Gy. The patients were stratified by age, institution, use of neoadjuvant or adjuvant hormonal therapy, and treatment group. The primary endpoint was freedom from failure (FFF), with failure defined as clinical or biochemical failure. Two definitions of biochemical failure were used: the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition (three consecutive increases in prostate-specific antigen level) and the Phoenix definition (nadir plus 2 microe secondary endpoints were freedom from clinical failure, overall survival, and genitourinary and gastrointestinal toxicity., Results: After a median follow-up of 70 months, the FFF using the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology definition was significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 54% vs. 47%, respectively; p = 0.04). The FFF using the Phoenix definition was also significantly better in the 78-Gy arm than in the 68-Gy arm (7-year FFF rate, 56% vs. 45%, respectively; p = 0.03). However, no differences in freedom from clinical failure or overall survival were observed. The incidence of late Grade 2 or greater genitourinary toxicity was similar in both arms (40% and 41% at 7 years; p = 0.6). However, the cumulative incidence of late Grade 2 or greater gastrointestinal toxicity was increased in the 78-Gy arm compared with the 68-Gy arm (35% vs. 25% at 7 years; p = 0.04)., Conclusion: The results of our study have shown a statistically significant improvement in FFF in prostate cancer patients treated with 78 Gy but with a greater rate of late gastrointestinal toxicity.