Search

Background. Decision making regarding adjuvant therapy for high-risk endometrial cancer is complex. The aim of this study was to determine patients' and clinicians' minimally desired survival benefit to choose chemoradiotherapy over radiotherapy alone. Moreover, influencing factors and importance of positive and negative treatment effects (i.e. attribute) were investigated.Methods. Patients with high-risk endometrial cancer treated with adjuvant pelvic radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy and multidisciplinary gynaecologic oncology clinicians completed a trade-off questionnaire based on PORTEC-3 trial data.Results. In total, 171 patients and 63 clinicians completed the questionnaire. Median minimally desired benefit to make chemoradiotherapy worthwhile was significantly higher for patients versus clinicians (10% vs 5%, p = 0.02). Both patients and clinicians rated survival benefit most important during decision making, followed by long-term symptoms. Older patients (OR 0.92 [95%CI 0.87 & ndash;0.97]; p = 0.003) with comorbidity (OR 0.34 [95% CI 0.12 & ndash;0.89]; p = 0.035) had lower preference for chemoradiotherapy, while patients with better numeracy skills (OR 1.2 [95%CI 1.05 & ndash;1.36], p = 0.011) and chemoradiotherapy history (OR 25.0 [95%CI 8.8 & ndash;91.7]; p < 0.001) had higher preference for chemoradiotherapy.& nbsp;Conclusions. There is a considerable difference in minimally desired survival benefit of chemoradiotherapy in high-risk endometrial cancer among and between patients and clinicians. Overall, endometrial cancer patients needed higher benefits than clinicians before preferring chemoradiotherapy.(c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Item does not contain fulltext PURPOSE: To investigate the feasibility of in vivo dosimetry using microMOSFET dosimeters in patients treated with brachytherapy using two types of gynecological applicators. METHODS AND MATERIALS: In this study, a microMOSFET was placed in an empty needle of an Utrecht Interstitial Fletcher applicator or MUPIT (Martinez Universal Perineal Interstitial Template) applicator for independent verification of treatment delivery. Measurements were performed in 10 patients, with one to three microMOSFETs per applicator and repeated for one to four fractions, resulting in 50 in vivo measurements. Phantom measurements were used to determine characteristics of the microMOSFETs. RESULTS: Phantom measurements showed a linear relationship between dose and microMOSFET threshold voltage, and a calibration coefficient (mV/cGy) was determined. Reproducibility of repeated 50 cGy irradiations was 2% (1 standard deviation). Distance and angle dependencies were measured and correction factors were determined. Subsequently, three microMOSFETs were placed in a phantom to measure a validation plan. The difference between predicted and measured dose was less than the measurement uncertainty (+/-9%, 2 standard deviations). In vivo measurements were corrected for distance and angle dependencies. Differences between predicted and measured dose in the patients were smaller than the measurement uncertainty for the majority of the measurements. CONCLUSIONS: In vivo dosimetry using microMOSFETs in MUPIT and Utrecht Interstitial Fletcher applicators has proved to be feasible. Reimaging should be performed after detection of differences larger than 10% between predicted and measured dose to verify the applicator configuration. Movement of the applicator relative to the target or organs at risk is undetectable with this method.