Search

Background and purposeThe SOFT trial is a prospective, multicenter, phase 2 trial investigating magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for abdominal, soft tissue metastases in patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) (clinicaltrials.govID NCT04407897). We present the primary endpoint analysis of 1-year treatment-related toxicity (TRAE).Materials and methodsPatients with up to five oligometastases from non-hematological cancers were eligible for inclusion. A risk-adapted strategy prioritized fixed organs at risk (OAR) constraints over target coverage. Fractionation schemes were 45–67.5 Gy in 3–8 fractions. The primary endpoint was grade ≥ 4 TRAE within 12 months post-SABR. The association between the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical and dosimetric parameters was tested using a normal tissue complication probability model.ResultsWe included 121 patients with 147 oligometastatic targets, mainly located in the liver (41 %), lymph nodes (35 %), or adrenal glands (14 %). Nearly half of all targets (48 %, n = 71) were within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs, 3.5 % grade 3 TRAEs, and 43.7 % grade 2 TRAEs were reported within the first year of follow-up. We found a significant association between grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity and the parameters GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc.ConclusionIn this phase II study of MR-guided SABR of oligometastases in the infra-diaphragmatic region, we found a low incidence of toxicity despite half of the lesions being within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc were associated with grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity., Background and purpose: The SOFT trial is a prospective, multicenter, phase 2 trial investigating magnetic resonance (MR)-guided stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for abdominal, soft tissue metastases in patients with oligometastatic disease (OMD) (clinicaltrials.gov ID NCT04407897). We present the primary endpoint analysis of 1-year treatment-related toxicity (TRAE). Materials and methods: Patients with up to five oligometastases from non-hematological cancers were eligible for inclusion. A risk-adapted strategy prioritized fixed organs at risk (OAR) constraints over target coverage. Fractionation schemes were 45–67.5 Gy in 3–8 fractions. The primary endpoint was grade ≥ 4 TRAE within 12 months post-SABR. The association between the risk of gastrointestinal (GI) toxicity and clinical and dosimetric parameters was tested using a normal tissue complication probability model. Results: We included 121 patients with 147 oligometastatic targets, mainly located in the liver (41 %), lymph nodes (35 %), or adrenal glands (14 %). Nearly half of all targets (48 %, n = 71) were within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. No grade 4 or 5 TRAEs, 3.5 % grade 3 TRAEs, and 43.7 % grade 2 TRAEs were reported within the first year of follow-up. We found a significant association between grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity and the parameters GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc. Conclusion: In this phase II study of MR-guided SABR of oligometastases in the infra-diaphragmatic region, we found a low incidence of toxicity despite half of the lesions being within 10 mm of a radiosensitive OAR. GI OAR D0.1cc, D1cc, and D20cc were associated with grade ≥ 2 GI toxicity.

Cntroduction Many studies using Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data have been conducted to monitor symptoms and health-related quality of life during follow-up after cancer treatment. However new ways of using (e)PROs have emerged. We aimed to explore the Danish landscape of the use of PRO in a research setting, where PRO is used actively in cancer patients undergoing treatment, and give an overview of how it is embraced by patients and clinicians. Methods and materials A literature search was performed in June 2023, using the keywords Denmark, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes. An expert on literature searches identified the search terms, and double screening was performed at both abstract and screening levels and full-text stage. The software tool Covidence was used. Results 467 articles were retrieved and 19 studies were included. They described the type of ePRO instrument used and the application of active ePRO i.e. a dialogue tool in the clinical encounter, release of alerts to clinicians, and enhancement of self-management. Finally, a development in the use of active ePROs over time is elucidated and we show how it is embraced by patients and clinicians. Conclusion This mini-review gives an overview of how ePRO solutions are tested in oncological research in Denmark and embraced by patients and clinicians. ePRO solutions in a Danish setting seem well-suited for self-management. However, if more impact is warranted, clinicians need to engage in reviewing and using ePROs. Moreover, for successful implementation, the integration of ePROs in electronic health records must be supported by IT specialists and management., Introduction: Many studies using Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data have been conducted to monitor symptoms and health-related quality of life during follow-up after cancer treatment. However new ways of using (e)PROs have emerged. We aimed to explore the Danish landscape of the use of PRO in a research setting, where PRO is used actively in cancer patients undergoing treatment, and give an overview of how it is embraced by patients and clinicians. Methods and materials: A literature search was performed in June 2023, using the keywords Denmark, cancer, and patient-reported outcomes. An expert on literature searches identified the search terms, and double screening was performed at both abstract and screening levels and full-text stage. The software tool Covidence was used. Results: 467 articles were retrieved and 19 studies were included. They described the type of ePRO instrument used and the application of active ePRO i.e. a dialogue tool in the clinical encounter, release of alerts to clinicians, and enhancement of self-management. Finally, a development in the use of active ePROs over time is elucidated and we show how it is embraced by patients and clinicians. Conclusion: This mini-review gives an overview of how ePRO solutions are tested in oncological research in Denmark and embraced by patients and clinicians. ePRO solutions in a Danish setting seem well-suited for self-management. However, if more impact is warranted, clinicians need to engage in reviewing and using ePROs. Moreover, for successful implementation, the integration of ePROs in electronic health records must be supported by IT specialists and management.

Background: A new technology in cancer treatment, the MR-linac, provides online magnetic resonance-guided radiotherapy (MRgRT) that combines real-time visualization of the tumor and surrounding tissue with radiation therapy to deliver treatment more accurately. Online MRgRT makes it possible to minimize treatment volume, potentially reducing acute treatment toxicity. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) add the patient perspective to evaluating treatment toxicity related to new technology. The objective of this mixed-methods study was to develop and explore the content validity of a set of PRO items to evaluate acute pelvic toxicity to radiotherapy including online MRgRT. Methods: A literature review and chart audit were conducted to identify symptomatic adverse events (AEs) to be selected from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) library and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) item library. To validate the content, the item set was applied in a prospective pilot cohort of patients referred for primary pelvic RT with curative intent. Patients reported symptoms weekly during RT (4–8 weeks) and the subsequent 4 weeks. Follow-up reports were collected at 8, 12, and 24 weeks after RT. To ensure symptom coverage clinician-reported toxicity and individual patient interviews were conducted. The symptomatic AEs were included in the final item set if ≥20% of patients reported them. Results: Eighteen acute symptomatic AEs were selected for the initial item set. Forty patients (32 prostate cancer, 8 cervical cancer) were included in the pilot study. Patients with prostate cancer and those with cervical cancer both reported all 18 acute AEs. However, vomiting was not reported by > 20% of patients thus excluded from the item set. Adding a few diagnosis-specific AEs to the final item set was required for both prostate and cervical cancer patients. Conclusions: A PRO item set for pat