Search

Introduction: Pelvic internal organs change in volume and position during radiotherapy. This may compromise the efficacy of treatment or worsen its toxicity. There may be limitations to fully correcting these changes using online image guidance; therefore, effective and consistent patient preparation and positioning remain important. This review aims to provide an overview of the extent of pelvic organ motion and strategies to manage this motion. Methods and Materials: Given the breadth of this topic, a systematic review was not undertaken. Instead, existing systematic reviews and individual high-quality studies addressing strategies to manage pelvic organ motion have been discussed. Suggested levels of evidence and grades of recommendation for each strategy have been applied. Results: Various strategies to manage rectal changes have been investigated including diet and laxatives, enemas and rectal emptying tubes and rectal displacement with endorectal balloons (ERBs) and rectal spacers. Bladder-filling protocols and bladder ultrasound have been used to try to standardise bladder volume. Positioning the patient supine, using a full bladder and positioning prone with or without a belly board, has been examined in an attempt to reduce the volume of irradiated small bowel. Some randomised trials have been performed, with evidence to support the use of ERBs, rectal spacers, bladder-filling protocols and the supine over prone position in prostate radiotherapy. However, there was a lack of consistent high-quality evidence that would be applicable to different disease sites within the pelvis. Many studies included small numbers of patients were non-randomised, used less conformal radiotherapy techniques or did not report clinical outcomes such as toxicity. Conclusions: There is uncertainty as to the clinical benefit of many of the commonly adopted interventions to minimise pelvic organ motion. Given this and the limitations in online image guidance compensation, further investigation of adaptive radiotherapy strategies is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the accuracy of a 4-month post- (chemo)radiotherapy 18-fiudeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)-CT for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC), Methods: 105 patients who underwent a baseline and response assessment 18F-FDG PET-CT scan between 2008 and April 2013 were identified. 18F-FDG PET-CT outcomes were analysed with reference to clinicopathological outcomes. Results: 79 of 105 (75%) 18F-FDG PET-CT scans demonstrated a complete metabolic response: 19 of 101 (19%) for assessable primary tumours were positive; and 19 of 93 (20%) for patients with nodal disease were equivocal (n = 10) or positive (n = 9). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) for primary and nodal disease were 90%, 89%, 47%, 99% and 91%, 89%, 53% and 99%, respectively. Eight of nine patients with a positive nodal response scan had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 89%). 2 of 10 patients with equivocal nodal responses had clinicopathological evidence of residual nodal disease (PPV, 20%). Conclusion: 18F-FDG PET-CT 4 months post treatment has a very high NPV. A positive 18F-FDG PET-CT has a high PPV for residual nodal disease. By contrast, patients who have an equivocal nodal response have a low PPV. Advances in knowledge: Response assessment 18F-FDG PET-CT is a valuable tool in guiding the selective use of neck dissection following (chemo)radiotherapy for HNSCC. An equivocal lymph node response has a limited predictive value for persistent disease, and optimal management remains a clinical challenge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: The optimum use of brachytherapy (BT) combined with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) for localised/locally advanced prostate cancer (PCa) remains uncertain., Objective: To perform a systematic review to determine the benefits and harms of EBRT-BT., Evidence Acquisition: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBM Reviews-Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were systematically searched for studies published between January 1, 2000 and June 7, 2022, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement. Eligible studies compared low- or high-dose-rate EBRT-BT against EBRT ± androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and/or radical prostatectomy (RP) ± postoperative radiotherapy (RP ± EBRT). The main outcomes were biochemical progression-free survival (bPFS), severe late genitourinary (GU)/gastrointestinal toxicity, metastasis-free survival (MFS), cancer-specific survival (CSS), and overall survival (OS), at/beyond 5 yr. Risk of bias was assessed and confounding assessment was performed. A meta-analysis was performed for randomised controlled trials (RCTs)., Evidence Synthesis: Seventy-three studies were included (two RCTs, seven prospective studies, and 64 retrospective studies). Most studies included participants with intermediate-or high-risk PCa. Most studies, including both RCTs, used ADT with EBRT-BT. Generally, EBRT-BT was associated with improved bPFS compared with EBRT, but similar MFS, CSS, and OS. A meta-analysis of the two RCTs showed superior bPFS with EBRT-BT (estimated fixed-effect hazard ratio [HR] 0.54 [95% confidence interval {CI} 0.40-0.72], p < 0.001), with absolute improvements in bPFS at 5-6 yr of 4.9-16%. However, no difference was seen for MFS (HR 0.84 [95% CI 0.53-1.28], p = 0.4) or OS (HR 0.87 [95% CI 0.63-1.19], p = 0.4). Fewer studies examined RP ± EBRT. There is an increased risk of severe late GU toxicity, especially with low-dose-rate EBRT-BT, with some evidence of increased prevalence of severe GU toxicity at 5-6 yr of 6.4-7% across the two RCTs., Conclusions: EBRT-BT can be considered for unfavourable intermediate/high-risk localised/locally advanced PCa in patients with good urinary function, although the strength of this recommendation based on the European Association of Urology guideline methodology is weak given that it is based on improvements in biochemical control., Patient Summary: We found good evidence that radiotherapy combined with brachytherapy keeps prostate cancer controlled for longer, but it could lead to worse urinary side effects than radiotherapy without brachytherapy, and its impact on cancer spread and patient survival is less clear., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Late effects of cancer treatment, such as neurocognitive deficits and fatigue, can be debilitating. Other than head and neck-specific functional deficits such as impairments in swallowing and speech, little is known about survivorship after oropharyngeal cancer. This study examines the lived experience of fatigue and neurocognitive deficits in survivors of oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer and impact on their daily lives., Methods: This work is part of the multicentre mixed method ROC-oN study (Radiotherapy for Oropharyngeal Cancer and impact on Neurocognition), evaluating fatigue and neurocognitive function in patients following radiotherapy +/- chemotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer and impact on quality of life. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in adults treated with radiotherapy (+/-chemotherapy) for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma >/=24 months from completing treatment. Reflexive thematic analysis performed., Results: 21 interviews (11 men and 10 women; median age 58 years and median time post-treatment 5 years) were conducted and analysed, yielding six themes: (1) unexpected burden of fatigue, (2) noticing changes in neurocognitive function, (3) the new normal, (4) navigating changes, (5)insufficient awareness and (6)required support. Participants described fatigue that persisted beyond the acute post-treatment period and changes in neurocognitive abilities across several domains. Paid and unpaid work, emotions and mood were impacted. Participants described navigating the new normal by adopting self-management strategies and accepting external support. They reported lack of recognition of these late effects, being poorly informed and being unprepared. Follow-up services were thought to be inadequate., Conclusions: Fatigue and neurocognitive impairment were frequently experienced by survivors of oropharyngeal cancer, at least two years after treatment. Patients felt ill-prepared for these late sequelae, highlighting opportunities for improvement of patient information and support services., 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., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Glioblastoma (GBM) is the most common adult primary malignant brain tumour. The condition is incurable and, despite aggressive treatment at first presentation, almost all tumours recur after a median of 7 months. The aim of treatment at recurrence is to prolong survival and maintain health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Chemotherapy is typically employed for recurrent GBM, often using nitrosourea-based regimens. However, efficacy is limited, with reported median survivals between 5 and 9 months from recurrence. Although less commonly used in the UK, there is growing evidence that re-irradiation may produce survival outcomes at least similar to nitrosourea-based chemotherapy. However, there remains uncertainty as to the optimum approach and there is a paucity of available data, especially with regards to HRQoL. Brain Re-Irradiation Or Chemotherapy (BRIOChe) aims to assess re-irradiation, as an acceptable treatment option for recurrent IDH-wild-type GBM., Methods and Analysis: BRIOChe is a phase II, multi-centre, open-label, randomised trial in patients with recurrent GBM. The trial uses Sargent's three-outcome design and will recruit approximately 55 participants from 10 to 15 UK radiotherapy sites, allocated (2:1) to receive re-irradiation (35 Gy in 10 daily fractions) or nitrosourea-based chemotherapy (up to six, 6-weekly cycles). The primary endpoint is overall survival rate for re-irradiation patients at 9 months. There will be no formal statistical comparison between treatment arms for the decision-making primary analysis. The chemotherapy arm will be used for calibration purposes, to collect concurrent data to aid interpretation of results. Secondary outcomes include HRQoL, dexamethasone requirement, anti-epileptic drug requirement, radiological response, treatment compliance, acute and late toxicities, progression-free survival., Ethics and Dissemination: BRIOChe obtained ethical approval from Office for Research Ethics Committees Northern Ireland (reference no. 20/NI/0070). Final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to the ICMJE guidelines., Trial Registration Number: ISRCTN60524., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FS reports grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study. DS-M reports grants from Jon Moulton Charitable Foundation, grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, during the conduct of the study. LM reports grants from Jon Moulton Charity Trust, grants from Cancer Research UK, during the conduct of the study; grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, outside the submitted work. SRB reports grants from Jon Moulton Charitable Foundation, grants from Yorkshire Cancer Research, during the conduct of the study. SS reports advisory board activity for Bayer, CeCaVa Laboratory Research project support, Apollomics., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

When radiotherapy is used in the treatment of head and neck cancers, the brain commonly receives incidental doses of radiotherapy with potential for neurocognitive changes and subsequent impact on quality of life. This has not been widely investigated to date. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psycinfo Info and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) electronic databases was conducted. Of 2077 records screened, 20 were eligible comprising 1308 patients. There were no randomised studies and 73.3% of included patients were from single center studies. IMRT was delivered in 72.6% of patients, and chemotherapy used in 61%. There was considerable heterogeneity in methods. Narrative synthesis was therefore carried out. Most studies demonstrated inferior neurocognitive outcomes when compared to control groups at 12 months and beyond radiotherapy. Commonly affected neurocognitive domains were memory and language which appeared related to radiation dose to hippocampus, temporal lobe, and cerebellum. Magnetic Resonance Imaging could be valuable in the detection of early microstructural and functional changes, which could be indicative of future neurocognitive changes. In studies investigating quality of life, the presence of neurocognitive impairment was associated with inferior quality of life outcomes. (Chemo)radiotherapy for head and neck cancer appears to be associated with a risk of long-term neurocognitive impairment. Few studies were identified, with substantial variation in methodology, thus limiting conclusions. High quality large prospective head and neck cancer studies using standardised, sensitive, and reliable neurocognitive tests are needed., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest 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., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background and Purpose: There is renewed interest in hypofractionated radiotherapy, but limited data and a lack of consensus to support use for head and neck cancer. In this multicentre analysis we compared outcomes for patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) treated with conventional and accelerated, mildly hypofractionated radiotherapy without chemotherapy., Materials and Methods: A multi-centre, observational study of consecutive OPSCCs treated between 2015 and 2018. Patients underwent curative-intent radiotherapy (oropharyngeal and bilateral neck) using conventionally fractionated (70 Gy in 35 fractions over 7 weeks, n = 97) or accelerated, mildly hypofractionated (65-66 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks, n = 136) radiotherapy without chemotherapy. Locoregional control (LRC) and overall survival (OS) were compared. Patients alive and cancer-free at a minimum of 2 years post-radiotherapy (n = 151, 65%) were sent an MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI) questionnaire to assess swallow function., Results: LRC and OS were similar across schedules (p = 0.78 and 0.95 respectively, log-rank test). Enteral feeding rates during radiotherapy appeared higher in the 7-week group though this did not reach statistical significance (59% vs 48%, p = 0.08). Feeding rates were similar at 1 year post radiotherapy for both groups (10% vs 6%, p = 0.27). 107 patients returned MDADI questionnaires (71%); there were no differences between the 6- and 7-week groups for median global (60.0 vs 60.0, p = 0.99) and composite (65.8 vs 64.2, p = 0.44) MDADI scores., Conclusion: Patients with OPSCC treated with radiotherapy alone have similar swallowing outcomes, LRC and OS following accelerated, mild hypofractionation and standard fractionation schedules, supporting its use as a standard-of-care option for patients unsuitable for concurrent chemotherapy., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) is increasingly used to treat metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences but limited evidence/guidance exists in the setting of pelvic re-irradiation. An international Delphi study was performed to develop statements to guide practice regarding patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning, delivery and cumulative organs at risk (OARs) constraints., Materials and Methods: Forty-one radiation oncologists were invited to participate in three online surveys. In Round 1, information and opinion was sought regarding participants' practice. Guidance statements were developed using this information and in Round 2 participants were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement. In Round 3, any statements without consensus were re-presented unmodified, alongside a summary of comments from Round 2., Results: Twenty-three radiation oncologists participated in Round 1 and, of these, 21 (91%) and 22 (96%) completed Rounds 2 and 3 respectively. Twenty-nine of 44 statements (66%) achieved consensus in Round 2. The remaining 15 statements (34%) did not achieve further consensus in Round 3. Consensus was achieved for 10 of 17 statements (59%) regarding patient selection/pre-treatment investigations; 12 of 13 statements (92%) concerning treatment planning and delivery; and 7 of 14 statements (50%) relating to OARs. Lack of agreement remained regarding the minimum time interval between irradiation courses, the number/size of pelvic lesions that can be treated and the most appropriate cumulative OAR constraints., Conclusions: This study has established consensus, where possible, in areas of patient selection, pre-treatment investigations, treatment planning and delivery for pelvic SABR re-irradiation for metastatic oligorecurrence and locoregional recurrences. Further research into this technique is required, especially regarding aspects of practice where consensus was not achieved., Competing Interests: Declarations/conflicts of interest statement FS is a Clinical Research Fellow supported by a Cancer Research UK Centres Network Accelerator Award to the ART-NET consortium (grant number A21993). FA reports speaker honoraria and consultancy for Varian and Elekta. BAJF reports institutional research funding grants from Italian Association for Cancer Research (AIRC), FIEO-CCM & FUV and Accuray, outside of the submitted work. BAJF reports travel expenses/speaker fees from Janssen, Ferring, Bayer, Roche, Astellas, Elekta, Carl Zeiss, Ipsen, Accuray and IBA, outside of the submitted work. MAH is supported by funding from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. AMH is supported by grants from Cancer Research UK (award number 108036), National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (award number 111218), Medical Research Council (MRC) (award number 107154) and Sir John Fisher Foundation (charity, no award number). LJM is an associate professor supported by a Yorkshire Cancer Research funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research (award number L389LM)., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)