Search

The evidence for the value of particle therapy (PT) is still sparse. While randomized trials remain a cornerstone for robust comparisons with photon-based radiotherapy, data registries collecting real-world data can play a crucial role in building evidence for new developments. This Perspective describes how the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) is actively working on establishing a prospective data registry encompassing all patients undergoing PT in European centers. Several obstacles and hurdles are discussed, for instance harmonization of nomenclature and structure of technical and dosimetric data and data protection issues. A preferred approach is the adoption of a federated data registry model with transparent and agile governance to meet European requirements for data protection, transfer, and processing. Funding of the registry, especially for operation after the initial setup process, remains a major challenge.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that isotoxic focal boosting to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer improves 5-year disease-free survival (DFS). Although the near-minimum dose to the gross tumor volume (D98%) was associated with improved outcomes, a closer look suggested that this might not be the same for all patients. Therefore, we investigated whether risk factors that are associated with a benefit of focal boosting can be identified. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We described the distribution of clinical characteristics and the number of high-risk factors with respect to the D98% in 526 FLAME trial patients. We used penalized Cox regression to develop a prediction model. To investigate a potential benefit in patient subgroups, we compared the model-based predictions of 5-year DFS assuming standard whole-gland radiation therapy of 77 Gy to the predictions assuming an additional focal boost with D98% of 95 Gy. RESULTS: Patients with high-risk factors were well represented in the group of 120 patients that received D98% > 85 Gy and showed fewer recurrences compared with the group that received 77 Gy. Applying the model simulating a standard dose of 77 Gy, we predicted a high DFS for grade group (GG) 1 patients, whereas patients with high-risk characteristics appeared to show a low DFS. All risk groups showed a high level of DFS when simulating D98% of 95 Gy. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that GG 1 patients already show a low level of failure at a standard dose of 77 Gy, limiting the additional benefit of focal boosting. In contrast, patients with high-risk characteristics, especially GG 4 or 5, show a low 5-year DFS, while focal boosting might improve this substantially. This suggests that reaching a high focal boost dose may be particularly beneficial for these patients.

PURPOSE: The TOPGEAR phase 3 trial hypothesized that adding preoperative chemoradiation therapy (CRT) to perioperative chemotherapy will improve survival in patients with gastric cancer. Owing to the complexity of gastric irradiation, a comprehensive radiation therapy quality assurance (RTQA) program was implemented. Our objective is to describe the RTQA methods and outcomes. METHODS AND MATERIALS: RTQA was undertaken in real time before treatment for the first 5 patients randomized to CRT from each center. Once acceptable quality was achieved, RTQA was completed for one-third of subsequent cases. RTQA consisted of evaluating (1) clinical target volume and organ-at-risk contouring and (2) radiation therapy planning parameters. Protocol violations between high- (20+ patients enrolled) and low-volume centers were compared using the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: TOPGEAR enrolled 574 patients, of whom 286 were randomized to receive preoperative CRT and 203 (71%) were included for RTQA. Of these, 67 (33%) and 136 (67%) patients were from high- and low-volume centers, respectively. The initial RTQA pass rate was 72%. In total, 28% of cases required resubmission. In total, 200 of 203 cases (99%) passed RTQA before treatment. Cases from low-volume centers required resubmission more often (44/136 [33%] vs 13/67 [18%]; P = .078). There was no change in the proportion of cases requiring resubmission over time. Most cases requiring resubmission had multiple protocol violations. At least 1 aspect of the clinical target volume had to be adjusted in all cases. Inadequate coverage of the duodenum was most common (53% major violation, 25% minor violation). For the remaining cases, the resubmission process was triggered secondary to poor contour/plan quality. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter trial, RTQA is feasible and effective in achieving high-quality treatment plans. Ongoing education should be performed to ensure consistent quality during the entire study period.

Item does not contain fulltext, Current risk-stratification systems for prostate cancer (PCa) do not sufficiently reflect the disease heterogeneity. Genomic classifiers (GC) enable improved risk stratification after surgery, but less data exist for patients treated with definitive radiation therapy (RT) or RT in oligo-/metastatic disease stages. To guide future perspectives of GCs for RT, we conducted (1) a systematic review on the evidence of GCs for patients treated with RT and (2) a survey of experts using the Delphi method, addressing the role of GCs in personalized treatments to identify relevant fields of future clinical and translational research. We performed a systematic review and screened ongoing clinical trials on ClinicalTrials.gov. Based on these results, a multidisciplinary international team of experts received an adapted Delphi method survey. Thirty-one and 30 experts answered round 1 and round 2, respectively. Questions with ≥75% agreement were considered relevant and included in the qualitative synthesis. Evidence for GCs as predictive biomarkers is mainly available to the postoperative RT setting. Validation of GCs as prognostic markers in the definitive RT setting is emerging. Experts used GCs in patients with PCa with extensive metastases (30%), in postoperative settings (27%), and in newly diagnosed PCa (23%). Forty-seven percent of experts do not currently use GCs in clinical practice. Expert consensus demonstrates that GCs are promising tools to improve risk-stratification in primary and oligo-/metastatic patients in addition to existing classifications. Experts were convinced that GCs might guide treatment decisions in terms of RT-field definition and intensification/deintensification in various disease stages. This work confirms the value of GCs and the promising evidence of GC utility in the setting of RT. Additional studies of GCs as prognostic biomarkers are anticipated and form the basis for future studies addressing predictive capabilities of GCs to optimize RT and

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION: The OMEC project has resul

01 augustus 2023, Contains fulltext : 294962.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The hypo-FLAME trial showed that once-weekly (QW) focal boosted prostate stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) is associated with acceptable acute genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity. Currently, we investigated the safety of reducing the overall treatment time (OTT) of focal boosted prostate SBRT from 29 to 15 days. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Patients with intermediate- and high-risk prostate cancer were treated with SBRT delivering 35 Gy in 5 fractions to the whole prostate gland with an iso-toxic boost up to 50 Gy to the intraprostatic lesion(s) in a semi-weekly (BIW) schedule. The primary endpoint was radiation-induced acute toxicity (CTCAE v5.0). Changes in quality of life (QoL) were examined in terms of proportions achieving a minimal clinically important change (MCIC). Finally, acute toxicity and QoL scores of the BIW schedule were compared with the results of the prior QW hypo-FLAME schedule (n = 100). RESULTS: Between August 2020 and February 2022, 124 patients were enrolled and treated BIW. No grade ≥3 GU or GI toxicity was observed. The 90-days cumulative incidence of grade 2 GU and GI toxicity rates were 47.5% and 7.4%, respectively. Patients treated QW scored significant less grade 2 GU toxicity (34.0%, p = 0.01). No significant differences in acute GI toxicity were observed. Furthermore, patients treated QW had a superior acute bowel and urinary QoL. CONCLUSION: Semi-weekly prostate SBRT with iso-toxic focal boosting is associated with acceptable acute GU and GI toxicity. Based on the comparison between the QW and BIW schedule, patients should be counselled regarding the short-term advantages of a more protracted schedule. Registration number ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04045717.

Editorial In summary, ESTRO clinical and other guidelines are soundly based, but always require validation, careful and consistent implementation, and focused education and training on their use, as well as local monitoring of that. As guidelines develop and older ones become superseded, there should be a clear mechanism to inform the community of the status of specific guidelines, especially when they have been replaced by new or updated versions. An important scientific aim for the future is to further advance guidelines and their individual statements into fully evidence-based instruments. These, in principle, could be directly linked to growing data-bases, allowing feedback mechanisms and thus continuous optimization. Another challenging research topic is the interplay of guidelines with growing opportunities and demands of personalized approaches of treatment.

Aims: The number of Proton Therapy (PT) facilities is still limited worldwide, and the access to treatment could be characterized by patients’ logistic and economic challenges. Aim of the present survey is to assess the support provided to patients undergoing PT across Europe. Methods: Through a personnel contact, an online questionnaire (62 multiple-choice and open-ended questions) via Microsoft Forms was administered to 10 European PT centers. The questionnaire consisted of 62 questions divided into 6 sections: i) personal data; ii) general information on clinical activity; iii) fractionation, concurrent systemic treatments and technical aspects of PT facility; iv) indication to PT and reimbursement policies; v) economic and/ or logistic support to patients vi) participants agreement on statements related to the possible limitation of access to PT. A qualitative analysis was performed and reported. Results: From March to May 2022 all ten involved centers filled the survey. Nine centers treat from 100 to 500 patients per year. Paediatric patients accounted for 10–30%, 30–50% and 50–70% of the entire cohort for 7, 2 and 1 center, respectively. The most frequent tumours treated in adult population were brain tumours, sarcomas and head and neck carcinomas; in all centers, the mean duration of PT is longer than 3 weeks. In 80% of cases, the treatment reimbursement for PT is supplied by the respective country’s Health National System (HNS). HNS also provides economic support to patients in 70% of centers, while logistic and meal support is provided in 20% and 40% of centers, respectively. PT facilities offer economic and/or logistic support in 90% of the cases. Logistic support for parents of pediatric patients is provided by HNS only in one-third of centers. Overall, 70% of re- spondents agree that geographic challenges could limit a patient’s access to proton facilities and 60% believe that additional support should be given to patients referred for PT care.

This issue includes a perspective contribution by Lefresne et al. [1] on face-to-face scientific conferences versus virtual meetings and the implications for climate change. Generally, it is the policy of the Green Journal not to publish contributions with non-scientific content. In this specific case, the editors believe that the contribution by Lefresne and colleagues raises an important point that needs careful consideration and discussion in our scientific community. As scientists, we are at the forefront of research and strive to positively shape the future for humankind. Therefore, it is of key importance that the environmental impact of scientific activities is considered, and that our community develops and contributes to solutions to prevent further exacerbation of climate change with its substantial impact on health-related issues. This includes that pros and cons of face-to-face scientific meetings are carefully weighed.

Item does not contain fulltext, PURPOSE OR OBJECTIVES: The FLAME trial (NCT01168479) showed that by adding a focal boost to conventional fractionated EBRT in the treatment of localized prostate cancer, the five-year biochemical disease-free survival increased, without significantly increasing toxicity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the association between radiation dose to the bladder and urethra and genitourinary (GU) toxicity grade ≥2 in the entire cohort. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The dose-effect relations of the urethra and bladder dose, separately, and GU toxicity grade ≥2 (CTCAE 3.0) up to five years after treatment were assessed. A mixed model analysis for repeated measurements was used, adjusting for age, diabetes mellitus, T-stage, baseline GU toxicity grade ≥1 and institute. Additionally, the association between the dose and separate GU toxicity subdomains were investigated. RESULTS: Dose-effect relations were observed for the dose (Gy) to the bladder D2 cm(3) and urethra D0.1 cm(3), with adjusted odds ratios of 1.14 (95% CI 1.12-1.16, p < 0.0001) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.11-1.14, p < 0.0001), respectively. Additionally, associations between the dose to the urethra and bladder and the subdomains urinary frequency, urinary retention and urinary incontinence were observed. CONCLUSION: Further increasing the dose to the bladder and urethra will result in a significant increase in GU toxicity following EBRT. Focal boost treatment plans should incorporate a urethral dose-constraint. Further treatment optimization to increase the focal boost dose without increasing the dose to the urethra and other organs at risk should be a focus for future research, as we have shown that a focal boost is beneficial in the treatment of prostate cancer.

Item does not contain fulltext

Item does not contain fulltext, BACKGROUND: Focal dose escalation in external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) showed an increase in 5-yr biochemical disease-free survival in the Focal Lesion Ablative Microboost in Prostate Cancer (FLAME) trial. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the effect of a focal boost to intraprostatic lesions on local failure-free survival (LFS) and regional + distant metastasis-free survival (rdMFS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Patients with intermediate- or high-risk localized prostate cancer were included in FLAME, a phase 3, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. INTERVENTION: Standard treatment of 77 Gy to the entire prostate in 35 fractions was compared to an additional boost to the macroscopic tumor of up to 95 Gy during EBRT. OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: LFS and rdMFS, measured via any type of imaging, were compared between the treatment arms using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Dose-response curves were created for local failure (LF) and regional + distant metastatic failure (rdMF) using logistic regression. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: A total of 571 patients were included in the FLAME trial. Over median follow-up of 72 mo (interquartile range 58-86), focal boosting decreased LF (hazard ratio [HR] 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.14-0.78) and rdMF (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.93). Dose-response curves showed that a greater dose to the tumor resulted in lower LF and rdMF rates. CONCLUSIONS: A clear dose-response relation for LF and rdMF was observed, suggesting that adequate focal dose escalation to intraprostatic lesions prevents undertreatment of the primary tumor, resulting in an improvement rdMF. PATIENT SUMMARY: Radiotherapy is a treatment option for high-risk prostate cancer. The FLAME trial has shown that a high dose specifically targeted at the tumor within the prostate will result in better disease outcome, with less likelihood of regional and distant disease spread. The FLAME trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01168479.

Item does not contain fulltext

A look through almost 2000 abstracts submitted for the upcom- ing ESTRO 2022 meeting together with a glance back on the 2021 papers published in Radiotherapy and Oncology gives one a good impression of the (current) key focus areas in radiation oncology: Almost all of this work relates to optimal delivery of radiation ther- apy in terms of technology, quality assurance and morbidity reduc- ing approaches. Thus, at present the research questions considered as most relevant for radiotherapy of e.g. lung and oesophageal can- cer are not related to tumour control, but to the late risk of cardiac disease in the patients who are lucky to survive their cancer long enough to develop such problems [1]. The same scenario is found in the patient cohort that constitutes the largest indication for radiotherapy in Europe: women with early breast cancer [2]. In these examples, and in many other situations where radiotherapy is applied with a curative intent, less focus has currently been given to the aim or indication of the treatment, namely the control of loco-regional malignant disease. Of course, since Holthusen’s seminal paper in 1936 [3] the overall aim of radiotherapy, as stated over and over again by all teachers in the field (including the authors of this editorial), is uncomplicated tumour control, i.e. loco-regional tumour control without severe normal tissue damage (therapeutic ratio). This implies that rigorous study of the effects of radiotherapy on normal, non-tumour, tissues is an absolute necessity. Yet, the prescription of radiotherapy in clinical practice is done to kill tumour cells for local and loco-regional control. If the effects of radiotherapy on tumours are shifting out of focus, it might be taken for granted that the indication, dose, fractionation, and potential multidisciplinary interactions in this field are fully understood, and what remains is the fine tuning of the associated risk of morbidity.

Purpose: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. Materials and methods: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. Results: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst- case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter- fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. Conclusion: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter- fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.

Background and purpose Major differences exist among proton therapy (PT) centres regarding PT delivery in adult cancer patient. To obtain insight into current practice in Europe, we performed a survey among European PT centres. Materials and methods We designed electronic questionnaires for eight tumour sites, focusing on four main topics: 1) indications and patient selection methods; 2) reimbursement; 3) on-going or planned studies, 4) annual number of patients treated with PT. Results Of 22 centres, 19 (86%) responded. In total, 4,233 adult patients are currently treated across Europe annually, of which 46% consists of patients with central nervous system tumours (CNS), 15% head and neck cancer (HNC), 15% prostate, 9% breast, 5% lung, 5% gastrointestinal, 4% lymphoma, 0.3% gynaecological cancers. CNS are treated in all participating centres (n=19) using PT, HNC in 16 centres, lymphoma in 10 centres, gastrointestinal in 10 centres, breast in 7 centres, prostate in 6 centres, lung in 6 centres, and gynaecological cancers in 3 centres. Reimbursement is provided by national health care systems for the majority of commonly treated tumour sites. Approximately 74% of centres enrol patients for prospective data registration programs. Phase II-III trials are less frequent, due to reimbursement and funding problems. Reasons for not treating certain tumour types with PT are lack of evidence (30%), reimbursement issues (29%) and/or technical limitations (20%). Conclusion Across European PT centres, CNS tumours and HNC are the most frequently treated tumour types. Most centres use indication protocols. Lack of evidence for PT and reimbursement issues are the most reported reasons for not treating specific tumour types with PT.