Search

Background/objectives: Psychological distress is a significant concern among cancer patients, negatively affecting their quality of life and adherence to treatment. The Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (CancerPEP) was developed as a comprehensive, home-based intervention aimed at reducing psychological distress by incorporating physical activity, dietary guidance, and social support. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, accrual and attrition rates, safety, and effectiveness of the CancerPEP intervention, with and without the biofeedback device, on psychological distress from baseline to 6 months, specifically focusing on the effects of group randomization and the difference between pre- and post-intervention results., Methods: This single-site, crossover randomized clinical trial included 104 cancer patients who were randomized to receive the CancerPEP intervention, with or without a Heart Rate Variability (HRV) biofeedback monitor. At 6 months, participants who did not receive the device were allowed to use one until the end of the year, while those who did receive the device were followed up to 12 months. Randomization was stratified by the presence or absence of clinically significant psychological distress and metastatic status. Psychological distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary endpoint was the presence of nonspecific psychological distress, as measured by the K10 scale at 6 months from the trial start, based on group randomization. A secondary exploratory analysis assessed psychological distress at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months for both groups, while controlling for group randomization and prognostic covariates. Prognostic covariates included age; comorbidities; time between diagnosis and randomization; treatment modality; relationship status; and use of prescribed medications for anxiety, depression, or both. An exploratory sub-analysis was conducted for the breast cancer subgroup, based on the sample size available after recruitment. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05508412)., Results: The provision of the HRV biofeedback monitor in conjunction with the CancerPEP intervention did not significantly affect the primary outcome in either the full sample or the breast cancer subgroup, indicating that the HRV biofeedback provision was not beneficial in this trial. No self-reported or otherwise discovered adverse events at the 6-month mark were observed. About 10% of participants were lost to follow-up in both the early and late HRV monitor provision groups. Participation in the CancerPEP program led to a significant reduction in psychological distress over time. The odds of psychological distress were significantly higher at the start of the trial than at the end of the intervention (aOR = 2.64, 95% CI: 1.53-4.56) or 6 months after the intervention (aOR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.62-5.30). Similarly, in the breast cancer subgroup, distress was higher at the trial's start than at 6 months, i.e., after the intervention (aOR = 2.25, 95% CI: 1.24-4.08), or at the end of the trial at 12 months (aOR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.35-5.52)., Conclusions: CancerPEP significantly reduces psychological distress in cancer patients, with consistent improvements noted across various cancer types and stages, including benefits specifically for breast cancer patients. These findings build upon the success of the Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP), indicating that a similar comprehensive intervention can be advantageous for all cancer patients and may be further tailored to address specific needs. With its holistic approach-encompassing physical, dietary, and psychosocial support-CancerPEP shows promise as a vital component of survivorship care. Ongoing 24-month evaluations will yield critical data on its long-term benefits. Additionally, a randomized trial with a control group (usual care without intervention) for breast cancer patients is currently under way and could potentially guide the integration of CancerPEP into standard oncology care to enhance patient outcomes and quality of life.

Bolus serves as a tissue equivalent material that shifts the 95-100% isodose line towards the skin and subcutaneous tissue. The need for bolus for all breast cancer patients planned for postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) has been questioned. The work was initiated by the faculty of the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy & Oncology (ESTRO) breast cancer courses and represents a multidisciplinary international breast cancer expert collaboration to optimize PMRT. Due to the lack of randomised trials evaluating the benefits of bolus, we designed a stepwise project to evaluate the existing evidence about the use of bolus in the setting of PMRT to achieve an international consensus for the indications of bolus in PMRT, based on the Delphi method., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Post mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) reduces locoregional recurrence (LRR) and breast cancer mortality for selected patients. Bolus overcomes the skin-sparing effect of external-beam radiotherapy, ensuring adequate dose to superficial regions at risk of local recurrence (LR). This systematic review summarizes the current evidence regarding the impact of bolus on LR and acute toxicity in the setting of PMRT., Results: 27 studies were included. The use of bolus led to higher rates of acute grade 3 radiation dermatitis (pooled rates of 9.6% with bolus vs. 1.2% without). Pooled crude LR rates from thirteen studies (n = 3756) were similar with (3.5%) and without (3.6%) bolus., Conclusions: Bolus may be indicated in cases with a high risk of LR in the skin, but seems not to be necessary for all patients. Further work is needed to define the role of bolus in PMRT., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Radiation oncologists require clinical appraisal and research methodology skills, yet it is unclear how to develop these competencies during residency. We sought to attain a deeper understanding of the barriers that limit, as well as the factors that promote, engaging in research/scholarly activity during radiation oncology residency training in Canada. Following ethics approval, online surveys were circulated to all Canadian Radiation Oncology program directors and residents. Unidentifiable demographics, prior research experience, and descriptions of current research environment and barriers to engaging in research and scholarly activities were collected. Thirty-three percent (35/105) of residents and 71% (10/14) of program directors responded. Ninety-seven percent of residents, and 90% of program directors, agreed or strongly agreed that research/scholarly activity was an important part of residency training. While 66% of residents felt that there was a lack of protected time for research/scholarly activity, only 20% of program directors agreed this was a barrier (p = 0.011). While 94% of residents thought mentorship was important to completing high-quality research/scholarly activity, only 48% of respondents had a mentor. The highest barriers to completing research/scholarly activity projects were lack of protected time (for both residents and faculty), high resident clinical workload, and lack of experience in research skills. Canadian Radiation Oncology residents expressed strong enthusiasm to participate in research/scholarly activity, yet lack of protected time and competing demands were identified as major barriers. We suggest programs offer more protected time for research/scholarly activity, provide optional research methodology training, and support meaningful mentorship relationships.

Purpose: High-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT) is commonly combined with external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for the treatment of localized prostate cancer. Escalating the HDR-BT dose as far as organ-at-risk (OAR) constraints allow, on a personalized basis, would allow for a reduction in EBRT dose while achieving similar total biologic equivalence. The primary objective of this study was to determine the dosimetric feasibility of escalating the HDR-BT dose from 15 Gy to 16 or 17 Gy while continuing to meet OAR constraints from the original 15 Gy plan on an individualized basis., Methods and Materials: A total of 53 consecutive HDR-BT plans were retrospectively assessed to determine what percentage of plans could be reoptimized to deliver a dose of 16 Gy or 17 Gy, while meeting defined 15-Gy OAR constraints. Factors independently associated with dose escalation were examined., Results: Thirty-nine plans (74%) and 2 plans (4%) were successfully escalated to a dose of 16 Gy and 17 Gy, respectively. Rectum V80 and urethra D max were independently predictive of the ability to dose escalate to 16 Gy., Conclusions: Individualized HDR-BT dose escalation beyond 15 Gy without compromising OAR constraints is dosimetrically feasible. This approach could allow for a corresponding reduction of EBRT fractions (ie, from 15 to 12 fractions) and would be beneficial in terms of resource savings for departments, convenience for patients, and potentially better tolerance of treatment with the expected reduction in biologically equivalent doses to OARs. A clinical trial is being developed to investigate the efficacy and tolerance of personalized HDR-BT/EBRT dose fractionation for localized intracapsular prostate cancer., (© 2019 The Author(s).)