Search

Diagnostic and prognostic research 6, 14 (2022). doi:10.1186/s41512-022-00128-8, Published by BioMed Central, [London]

Highlights • Less than half of published clinical studies of proton beam therapy are prospective. • Only 10% of prospective studies of proton beam therapy are randomised. • Toxicity is the most common primary endpoint of interventional studies., Background Proton beam therapy (PBT) delivers high-energy radiation to target tumours while sparing surrounding normal tissues. The dosimetric advantages of PBT over traditional photon radiotherapy may be clear but the translation of this benefit into clinically meaningful reductions in toxicities and improved quality-of-life (QoL) needs to be determined. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for generating the highest-level evidence in medicine. The objectives of this systematic review were to provide an overview of published clinical studies evaluating the benefits of PBT, and to examine the methodology used in clinical trials with respect to study design and outcomes. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases were systematically searched for published clinical studies where PBT was a cancer treatment intervention. All randomised and non-randomised studies, prospective or retrospective, were eligible for inclusion. Results In total, 219 studies were included. Prospective studies comprised 89/219 (41%), and of these, the number of randomised phase II and III trials were 5/89 (6%) and 3/89 (3%) respectively. Of all the phase II and III trials, 18/24 (75%) were conducted at a single PBT centre. Over one-third of authors recommended an increase in length of follow up. Research design and/or findings were poorly reported in 74/89 (83%) of prospective studies. Patient reported outcomes were assessed in only 19/89 (21%) of prospective studies. Conclusions Prospective randomised evidence for PBT is limited. The set-up of national PBT services in several countries provides an opportunity to guide the optimal design of prospective studies, including RCTs, to evaluate the benefits of PBT across various disease sites. Collaboration between PBT centres, both nationally and internationally, would increase potential for the generation of practice changing evidence. There is a need to facilitate and guide the collection and analysis of meaningful outcome data, including late toxicities and patient reported QoL.

Background and purpose Comprehensive dosimetric analysis is required prior to the clinical implementation of pelvic MR-only sites, other than prostate, due to the limited number of site specific synthetic-CT (sCT) dosimetric assessments in the literature. This study aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of a deep learning-based, conditional generative adversarial network (cGAN) model for a large ano-rectal cancer cohort. The following challenges were investigated; T2-SPACE MR sequences, patient data from multiple centres and the impact of sex and cancer site on sCT quality. Method RT treatment position CT and T2-SPACE MR scans, from two centres, were collected for 90 ano-rectal patients. A cGAN model trained using a focal loss function, was trained and tested on 46 and 44 CT-MR ano-rectal datasets, paired using deformable registration, respectively. VMAT plans were created on CT and recalculated on sCT. Dose differences and gamma indices assessed sCT dosimetric accuracy. A linear mixed effect (LME) model assessed the impact of centre, sex and cancer site. Results A mean PTV D95% dose difference of 0.1% (range: −0.5% to 0.7%) was found between CT and sCT. All gamma index (1%/1 mm threshold) measurements were >99.0%. The LME model found the impact of modality, cancer site, sex and centre was clinically insignificant (effect ranges: −0.4% and 0.3%). The mean dose difference for all OAR constraints was 0.1%. Conclusion Focal loss cGAN models using T2-SPACE MR sequences from multiple centres can produce generalisable, dosimetrically accurate sCTs for ano-rectal cancers.

BACKGROUND: The indirect impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer outcomes is of increasing concern. However, the extent to which key treatment modalities have been affected is unclear. We aimed to assess the impact of the pandemic on radiotherapy activity in England. METHODS: In this population-based study, data relating to all radiotherapy delivered for cancer in the English NHS, between Feb 4, 2019, and June 28, 2020, were extracted from the National Radiotherapy Dataset. Changes in mean weekly radiotherapy courses, attendances (reflecting fractions), and fractionation patterns following the start of the UK lockdown were compared with corresponding months in 2019 overall, for specific diagnoses, and across age groups. The significance of changes in radiotherapy activity during lockdown was examined using interrupted time-series (ITS) analysis. FINDINGS: In 2020, mean weekly radiotherapy courses fell by 19·9% in April, 6·2% in May, and 11·6% in June compared with corresponding months in 2019. A relatively greater fall was observed for attendances (29·1% in April, 31·4% in May, and 31·5% in June). These changes were significant on ITS analysis (p

IntroductionThe standard of care for patients with localised rectal cancer is radical surgery, often combined with preoperative neoadjuvant (chemo)radiotherapy. While oncologically effective, this treatment strategy is associated with operative mortality risks, significant morbidity and stoma formation. An alternative approach is chemoradiotherapy to try to achieve a sustained clinical complete response (cCR). This non-surgical management can be attractive, particularly for patients at high risk of surgical complications. Modern radiotherapy techniques allow increased treatment conformality, enabling increased radiation dose to the tumour while reducing dose to normal tissue. The objective of this trial is to assess if radiotherapy dose escalation increases the cCR rate, with acceptable toxicity, for treatment of patients with early rectal cancer unsuitable for radical surgery.Methods and analysisAPHRODITE (A Phase II trial of Higher RadiOtherapy Dose In The Eradication of early rectal cancer) is a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled phase II trial aiming to recruit 104 participants from 10 to 12 UK sites. Participants will be allocated with a 2:1 ratio of intervention:control. The intervention is escalated dose radiotherapy (62 Gy to primary tumour, 50.4 Gy to surrounding mesorectum in 28 fractions) using simultaneous integrated boost. The control arm will receive 50.4 Gy to the primary tumour and surrounding mesorectum. Both arms will use intensity-modulated radiotherapy and daily image guidance, combined with concurrent chemotherapy (capecitabine, 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin or omitted). The primary endpoint is the proportion of participants with cCR at 6 months after start of treatment. Secondary outcomes include early and late toxicities, time to stoma formation, overall survival and patient-reported outcomes (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaires QLQ-C30 and QLQ-CR29, low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) questionnaire).Ethics and disseminationThe trial obtained ethical approval from North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (reference number 19/NW/0565) and is funded by Yorkshire Cancer Research. The final trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and adhere to International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines.Trial registration numberISRCTN16158514.

Aim: Low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) is pragmatically defined as disordered bowel function after rectal resection leading to a detriment in quality of life. This broad characterization does not allow for precise estimates of prevalence. The LARS score was designed as a simple tool for clinical evaluation of LARS. Although the LARS score has good clinical utility, it may not capture all important aspects that patients may experience. The aim of this collaboration was to develop an international consensus definition of LARS that encompasses all aspects of the condition and is informed by all stakeholders. Method: This international patient–provider initiative used an online Delphi survey, regional patient consultation meetings, and an international consensus meeting. Three expert groups participated: patients, surgeons and other health professionals from five regions (Australasia, Denmark, Spain, Great Britain and Ireland, and North America) and in three languages (English, Spanish, and Danish). The primary outcome measured was the priorities for the definition of LARS. Results: Three hundred twenty-five participants (156 patients) registered. The response rates for successive rounds of the Delphi survey were 86%, 96% and 99%. Eighteen priorities emerged from the Delphi survey. Patient consultation and consensus meetings refined these priorities to eight symptoms and eight consequences that capture essential aspects of the syndrome. Sampling bias may have been present, in particular, in the patient panel because social media was used extensively in recruitment. There was also dominance of the surgical panel at the final consensus meeting despite attempts to mitigate this. Conclusion: This is the first definition of LARS developed with direct input from a large international patient panel. The involvement of patients in all phases has ensured that the definition presented encompasses the vital aspects of the patient experience of LARS. The novel separation of symptoms and consequences may enable greater sensitivity to detect changes in LARS over time and with intervention.

Aims Preoperative short-course radiotherapy (SCRT) is an important treatment option for rectal cancer. The length of time between completing SCRT and surgery may influence postoperative outcomes, but the evidence available to determine the optimal interval is limited and often conflicting. Materials and methods Information was extracted from a colorectal cancer data repository (CORECT-R) on all surgically treated rectal cancer patients who received SCRT in the English National Health Service between April 2009 and December 2014. The time from radiotherapy to surgery was described across the population. Thirty-day postoperative mortality, returns to theatre, length of stay and 1-year survival were investigated in relation to the interval between radiotherapy and surgery. Results Within the cohort of 3469 patients, the time to surgery was 0–7 days for 76% of patients, 8–14 days for 19% of patients and 15–27 days for 5% of patients. There was a clear variation in relation to different patient characteristics. There was, however, no evidence of differences in postoperative outcomes in relation to interval length. Conclusions This study suggests that the time interval between SCRT and surgery does not influence postoperative outcomes up to a year after surgery. The study provides population-level, real-world evidence to complement that from clinical trials.