Search

Due to its low fractionation sensitivity, also known as “alpha/beta ratio,” in relation to its surrounding organs at risk, prostate cancer is predestined for hypofractionated radiation schedules assuming an increased therapeutic ratio compared to normofractionated regimens. While moderate hypofractionation (2.2–4 Gy) has been proven to be non-inferior to normal fractionation in several large randomized trials for localized prostate cancer, level I evidence for ultrahypofractionation (>4 Gy) was lacking until recently. An accumulating body of non-randomized evidence has recently been strengthened by the publication of two randomized studies comparing ultrahypofractionation with a normofractionated schedule, i.e., the Scandinavian HYPO-RT trial by Widmark et al. and the first toxicity results of the PACE‑B trial. In this review, we aim to give a brief overview of the current evidence of ultrahypofractionation, make an overall assessment of the level of evidence, and provide recommendations and requirements that should be followed before introducing ultrahypofractionation into routine clinical use.

Simple Summary There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for adjuvant radiotherapy among European radiation oncology experts. For this, GEC-ESTRO provided 19 European radiation oncology experts on gynaecological brachytherapy for decision-making analyses. The manuscript presents patterns in decision-making among these experts and demonstrates areas of consensus/discrepancies. We also analysed dose prescription and techniques of brachytherapy. This analysis is of special value as the objective approach enabled us to obtain an unbiased description of decision-making among the specialists (the study was not aimed to create or enforce a consensus). The manuscript provides valuable insight into clinical decision-making with a high impact on treatment selection, as expected differences between experts were observed. With this manuscript we are able to visualize and quantify these. This information is relevant for interdisciplinary discussions. Abstract Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Européen de Curiethérapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1–2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74–84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 × 7 Gy or 4 × 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 × 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1–2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic.

Simple Summary There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for adjuvant radiotherapy among European radiation oncology experts. For this, GEC-ESTRO provided 19 European radiation oncology experts on gynaecological brachytherapy for decision-making analyses. The manuscript presents patterns in decision-making among these experts and demonstrates areas of consensus/discrepancies. We also analysed dose prescription and techniques of brachytherapy. This analysis is of special value as the objective approach enabled us to obtain an unbiased description of decision-making among the specialists (the study was not aimed to create or enforce a consensus). The manuscript provides valuable insight into clinical decision-making with a high impact on treatment selection, as expected differences between experts were observed. With this manuscript we are able to visualize and quantify these. This information is relevant for interdisciplinary discussions. Background: There are various society-specific guidelines addressing adjuvant brachytherapy (BT) after surgery for endometrial cancer (EC). However, these recommendations are not uniform. Against this background, clinicians need to make decisions despite gaps between best scientific evidence and clinical practice. We explored factors influencing decision-making for adjuvant BT in clinical routine among experienced European radiation oncologists in the field of gynaecological radiotherapy (RT). We also investigated the dose and technique of BT. Methods: Nineteen European experts for gynaecological BT selected by the Groupe Europeen de Curietherapie and the European Society for Radiotherapy & Oncology provided their decision criteria and technique for postoperative RT in EC. The decision criteria were captured and converted into decision trees, and consensus and dissent were evaluated based on the objective consensus methodology. Results: The decision criteria used by the experts were tumour extension, grading, nodal status, lymphovascular invasion, and cervical stroma/vaginal invasion (yes/no). No expert recommended adjuvant BT for pT1a G1-2 EC without substantial LVSI. Eighty-four percent of experts recommended BT for pT1a G3 EC without substantial LVSI. Up to 74% of experts used adjuvant BT for pT1b LVSI-negative and pT2 G1-2 LVSI-negative disease. For 74-84% of experts, EBRT + BT was the treatment of choice for nodal-positive pT2 disease and for pT3 EC with cervical/vaginal invasion. For all other tumour stages, there was no clear consensus for adjuvant treatment. Four experts already used molecular markers for decision-making. Sixty-five percent of experts recommended fractionation regimens of 3 x 7 Gy or 4 x 5 Gy for BT as monotherapy and 2 x 5 Gy for combination with EBRT. The most commonly used applicator for BT was a vaginal cylinder; 82% recommended image-guided BT. Conclusions: There was a clear trend towards adjuvant BT for stage IA G3, stage IB, and stage II G1-2 LVSI-negative EC. Likewise, there was a non-uniform pattern for BT dose prescription but a clear trend towards 3D image-based BT. Finally, molecular characteristics were already used in daily decision-making by some experts under the pretext that upcoming trials will bring more clarity to this topic.

Aim To provide an overview on the available treatments to prevent and reduce gynecomastia and/or breast pain caused by antiandrogen therapy for prostate cancer. Methods The German Society of Radiation Oncology (DEGRO) expert panel summarized available evidence published and assessed the validity of the information on efficacy and treatment-related toxicity. Results Eight randomized controlled trials and one meta-analysis were identified. Two randomized trials demonstrated that prophylactic radiation therapy (RT) using 1 × 10 Gy or 2 × 6 Gy significantly reduced the rate of gynecomastia but not breast pain, as compared to observation. A randomized dose-finding trial identified the daily dose of 20 mg tamoxifen (TMX) as the most effective prophylactic dose and another randomized trial described that daily TMX use was superior to weekly use. Another randomized trial showed that prophylactic daily TMX is more effective than TMX given at the onset of gynecomastia. Two other randomized trials described that TMX was clearly superior to anastrozole in reducing the risk for gynecomastia and/or breast pain. One comparative randomized trial between prophylactic RT using 1 × 12 Gy and TMX concluded that prophylactic TMX is more effective compared to prophylactic RT and furthermore that TMX appears to be more effective to treat gynecomastia and/or breast pain when symptoms are already present. A meta-analysis confirmed that both prophylactic RT and TMX can reduce the risk of gynecomastia and/or breast pain with TMX being more effective; however, the rate of side effects after TMX including dizziness and hot flushes might be higher than after RT and must be taken into account. Less is known regarding the comparative effectiveness of different radiation fractionation schedules and more modern RT techniques. Conclusions Prophylactic RT as well as daily TMX can significantly reduce the incidence of gynecomastia and/or breast pain. TMX appears to be an effective alternative to RT also as a therapeutic treatment in the presence of gynecomastia but its side effects and off-label use must be considered.

BACKGROUND Previous results from the GEC-ESTRO trial showed that accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) using multicatheter brachytherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer after breast-conserving surgery was non-inferior to whole-breast irradiation in terms of local control and overall survival. Here, we present 5-year results of patient-reported quality of life. METHODS We did this randomised controlled phase 3 trial at 16 hospitals and medical centres in seven European countries. Patients aged 40 years or older with 0-IIA breast cancer were randomly assigned (1:1) after breast-conserving surgery (resection margins ≥2 mm) to receive either whole-breast irradiation of 50 Gy with a boost of 10 Gy or APBI using multicatheter brachytherapy. Randomisation was stratified by study centre, tumour type, and menopausal status, with a block size of ten and an automated dynamic algorithm. There was no masking of patients or investigators. The primary endpoint of the trial was ipsilateral local recurrence. Here, we present 5-year results of quality of life (a prespecified secondary endpoint). Quality-of-life questionnaires (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30, breast cancer module QLQ-BR23) were completed before radiotherapy (baseline 1), immediately after radiotherapy (baseline 2), and during follow-up. We analysed the data according to treatment received (as-treated population). Recruitment was completed in 2009, and long-term follow-up is continuing. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00402519. FINDINGS Between April 20, 2004, and July 30, 2009, 633 patients had accelerated partial breast irradiation and 551 patients had whole-breast irradiation. Quality-of-life questionnaires at baseline 1 were available for 334 (53%) of 663 patients in the APBI group and 314 (57%) of 551 patients in the whole-breast irradiation group; the response rate was similar during follow-up. Global health status (range 0-100) was stable in both groups: at baseline 1, APBI group mean score 65·5 (SD 20·6) versus whole-breast irradiation group 64·6 (19·6), p=0·37; at 5 years, APBI group 66·2 (22·2) versus whole-breast irradiation group 66·0 (21·8), p=0·94. The only moderate, significant difference (difference of 10-20 points) between the groups was found in the breast symptoms scale. Breast symptom scores were significantly higher (ie, worse) after whole-breast irradiation than after APBI at baseline 2 (difference of means 13·6, 95% CI 9·7-17·5; p