Search

Cancer research is a crucial pillar for countries to deliver more affordable, higher quality, and more equitable cancer care. Patients treated in research-active hospitals have better outcomes than patients who are not treated in these settings. However, cancer in Europe is at a crossroads. Cancer was already a leading cause of premature death before the COVID-19 pandemic, and the disastrous effects of the pandemic on early diagnosis and treatment will probably set back cancer outcomes in Europe by almost a decade. Recognising the pivotal importance of research not just to mitigate the pandemic today, but to build better European cancer services and systems for patients tomorrow, the Lancet Oncology European Groundshot Commission on cancer research brings together a wide range of experts, together with detailed new data on cancer research activity across Europe during the past 12 years. We have deployed this knowledge to help inform Europe's Beating Cancer Plan and the EU Cancer Mission, and to set out an evidence-driven, patient-centred cancer research roadmap for Europe. The high-resolution cancer research data we have generated show current activities, captured through different metrics, including by region, disease burden, research domain, and effect on outcomes. We have also included granular data on research collaboration, gender of researchers, and research funding. The inclusion of granular data has facilitated the identification of areas that are perhaps overemphasised in current cancer research in Europe, while also highlighting domains that are underserved. Our detailed data emphasise the need for more information-driven and data-driven cancer research strategies and planning going forward. A particular focus must be on central and eastern Europe, because our findings emphasise the widening gap in cancer research activity, and capacity and outcomes, compared with the rest of Europe. Citizens and patients, no matter where they are, must benefit from advances in cancer research. This Commission also highlights that the narrow focus on discovery science and biopharmaceutical research in Europe needs to be widened to include such areas as prevention and early diagnosis; treatment modalities such as radiotherapy and surgery; and a larger concentration on developing a research and innovation strategy for the 20 million Europeans living beyond a cancer diagnosis. Our data highlight the important role of comprehensive cancer centres in driving the European cancer research agenda. Crucial to a functioning cancer research strategy and its translation into patient benefit is the need for a greater emphasis on health policy and systems research, including implementation science, so that the innovative technological outputs from cancer research have a clear pathway to delivery. This European cancer research Commission has identified 12 key recommendations within a call to action to reimagine cancer research and its implementation in Europe. We hope this call to action will help to achieve our ambitious 70:35 target: 70% average 10-year survival for all European cancer patients by 2035.

Purpose: There is increasing evidence for the integration of locally ablative therapy into multimodality treatment of oligome-tastatic disease (OMD). To support standardised data collection, analysis, and comparison, a consensus OMD classification based on fundamental disease and treatment characteristics has previously been established. This study investigated the com-pleteness of reporting the proposed OMD characteristics in literature and evaluated whether the proposed OMD classification system can be applied to the historical data.Methods and Materials: A systematic literature review was performed in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane, searching for pro-spective and retrospective studies, where stereotactic body radiation therapy was a treatment component of OMD. Reporting of the OMD characteristics as described in the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification was analyzed, feasibility to retrospectively classify the proposed OMD states was investigated, and the effect of the categorization on overall survival (OS) was evaluated.Results: Our study shows incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics. The most fully reported characteristic was type of involved organs (88/95 studies); history of cancer progression was the least reported (not mentioned in 50/95 stud-ies). Retrospective OMD classification of existing literature was only possible for 7 of the 95 studies. With respect to categoriza-tion as de novo, repeat, or induced OMD, homogeneous patient cohorts were observed in 21 of the 95 studies, most frequently de novo OMD in 20 studies. Differences in OS at 2, 3, or 5 years were not statistically significant between the different states. OS was significantly influenced by primary tumor histology, with superior OS observed for prostate cancer and worst OS observed for non-small cell lung cancer.Conclusions: The largely incomplete reporting of the proposed OMD characteristics hampers a retrospective classification of existing literature. To facilitate future comparison of individual studies, as well as validation of the OMD classification, com-prehensive reporting of OMD characteristics using standardised terminology is recommended, as proposed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology classification system and following the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology/American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus.(c) 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To investigate the association between clinician-scored toxicities and patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL), in early-stage (ES-) and locally-advanced (LA-) non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients receiving loco-regional radiotherapy, included in the international real-world REQUITE study.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinicians scored eleven radiotherapy-related toxicities (and baseline symptoms) with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 4. HRQoL was assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core HRQoL questionnaire (EORTC-QLQ-C30). Statistical analyses used the mixed-model method; statistical significance was set at p=0.01. Analyses were performed for baseline and subsequent time points up to 2 years after radiotherapy and per treatment modality, radiotherapy technique and disease stage.RESULTS: Data of 435 patients were analysed. Pre-treatment, overall symptoms, dyspnea, chest wall pain, dysphagia and cough impacted overall HRQoL and specific domains. At subsequent time points, cough and dysphagia were overtaken by pericarditis in affecting HRQoL. Toxicities during concurrent chemo-radiotherapy and 3-dimensional radiotherapy had the most impact on HRQoL. Conversely, toxicities in sequential chemo-radiotherapy and SBRT had limited impact on patients' HRQoL. Stage impacts the correlations: LA-NSCLC patients are more adversely affected by toxicity than ES-NSCLC patients, mimicking the results of radiotherapy technique and treatment modality.CONCLUSION: Pre-treatment symptoms and acute/late toxicities variously impact HRQoL of ES- and LA-NSCLC patients undergoing different treatment approaches and radiotherapy techniques. Throughout the disease, dyspnea seems crucial in this association, highlighting the additional effect of co-existing comorbidities. Our data call for optimized radiotherapy limiting toxicities that may affect patients' HRQoL.

Background: In 2015, the Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control (GTFRCC) called for 80% of National Cancer Control Plans (NCCP) to include radiotherapy by 2020. As part of the ongoing ESTRO Global Impact of Radiotherapy in Oncology (GIRO) project, we assessed whether inclusion of radiotherapy in NCCPs correlates with radiotherapy machine availability, national income, and geographic region. Methods: A previously validated checklist was used to determine whether radiotherapy was included in each country's NCCP. We applied the CCORE optimal radiotherapy utilisation model to the GLOBOCAN 2020 data to estimate the demand for radiotherapy and compared this to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC) supply data, stratifying by income level and world region. World regions were defined according to the IAEA. Findings: Complete data (including GLOBOCAN 2020, DIRAC and NCCP) was available for 143 countries. Over half (55%, n = 79) included a radiotherapy-specific checklist item within the plan. Countries which included radiotherapy services planning in their NCCP had a higher median number of machines (1.68 vs 0.75 machines/1000 patients needing radiotherapy, p < 0.001). There was significant regional and income-level heterogeneity in the inclusion of radiotherapy-related items in NCCPs. Low-income and Asia-Pacific countries were least likely to include radiation oncology services planning in their NCCP (p = 0.06 and p = 0.003, respectively). Few countries in the Asia-Pacific (18.6%) had a plan to develop or maintain radiation services, compared to 57% of countries in Europe. Interpretation: Only 55% of current NCCPs included any information regarding radiotherapy, below the GTFRCC's target of 80%. Prioritisation of radiotherapy in NCCPs was correlated with radiotherapy machine availability. There was regional and income-level heterogeneity regarding the inclusion of specific radiotherapy checklist items in the NCCPs. Ongoing efforts are needed to promote the inclusion of radiotherapy in future iterations of NCCPs in order to improve global access to radiation treatment.

BACKGROUND: Centralisation of specialist cancer services is occurring in many countries, often without evaluating the potential impact before implementation. We developed a health service planning model that can estimate the expected impacts of different centralisation scenarios on travel time, equity in access to services, patient outcomes, and hospital workload, using rectal cancer surgery as an example.METHODS: For this population-based modelling study, we used routinely collected individual patient-level data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service (NCRAS) and linked to the NHS Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) database for 11 888 patients who had been diagnosed with rectal cancer between April 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2018, and who subsequently underwent a major rectal cancer resection in 163 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals providing rectal cancer surgery in England. Five centralisation scenarios were considered: closure of lower-volume centres (scenario A); closure of non-comprehensive cancer centres (scenario B); closure of centres with a net loss of patients to other centres (scenario C); closure of centres meeting all three criteria in scenarios A, B, and C (scenario D); and closure of centres with high readmission rates (scenario E). We used conditional logistic regression to predict probabilities of affected patients moving to each of the remaining centres and the expected changes in travel time, multilevel logistic regression to predict 30-day emergency readmission rates, and linear regression to analyse associations between the expected extra travel time for patients whose centre is closed and five patient characteristics, including age, sex, socioeconomic deprivation, comorbidity, and rurality of the patients' residential areas (rural, urban [non-London], or London). We also quantified additional workload, defined as the number of extra patients reallocated to remaining centres.FINDINGS: Of the 11 888 patients, 4130 (34·7%) were women, 5249 (44·2%) were aged 70 years and older, and 5005 (42·1%) had at least one comorbidity. Scenario A resulted in closures of 43 (26%) of the 163 rectal cancer surgery centres, affecting 1599 (13·5%) patients; scenario B resulted in closures of 112 (69%) centres, affecting 7029 (59·1%) patients; scenario C resulted in closures of 56 (34%) centres, affecting 3142 (26·4%) patients; scenario D resulted in closures of 24 (15%) centres, affecting 874 (7·4%) patients; and scenario E resulted in closures of 16 (10%) centres, affecting 1000 (8·4%) patients. For each scenario, there was at least a two-times increase in predicted travel time for re-allocated patients with a mean increase in travel time of 23 min; however, the extra travel time did not disproportionately affect vulnerable patient groups. All scenarios resulted in significant reductions in 30-day readmission rates (range 4-48%). Three hospitals in scenario A, 41 hospitals in in scenario B, 13 hospitals in scenario C, no hospitals in scenario D, and two hospitals in scenario E had to manage at least 20 extra patients annually.INTERPRETATION: This health service planning model can be used to to guide complex decisions about the closure of centres and inform mitigation strategies. The approach could be applied across different country or regional health-care systems for patients with cancer and other complex health conditons.FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Purpose: This joint guideline by American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) was initiated to review evidence and provide recommendations regarding the use of local therapy in the management of extracranial oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Local therapy is defined as the comprehensive treatment of all known cancer—primary tumor, regional nodal metastases, and metastases—with definitive intent. Methods: ASTRO and ESTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions focused on the use of local (radiation, surgery, other ablative methods) and systemic therapy in the management of oligometastatic NSCLC. The questions address clinical scenarios for using local therapy, sequencing and timing when integrating local with systemic therapies, radiation techniques critical for oligometastatic disease targeting and treatment delivery, and the role of local therapy for oligoprogression or recurrent disease. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using ASTRO guidelines methodology. Results: Based on the lack of significant randomized phase 3 trials, a patient-centered, multidisciplinary approach was strongly recommended for all decision-making regarding potential treatment. Integration of definitive local therapy was only relevant if technically feasible and clinically safe to all disease sites, defined as 5 or fewer distinct sites. Conditional recommendations were given for definitive local therapies in synchronous, metachronous, oligopersistent, and oligoprogressive conditions for extracranial disease. Radiation and surgery were the only primary definitive local therapy modalities recommended for use in the management of patients with oligometastatic disease, with indications provided for choosing one over the other. Sequencing recommendations were provided for systemic and local therapy integration. Finally, multiple recommendations were provided for the optimal technical use of hypofractionated radiation or stereotactic body radiation therapy as definitive local therapy, including dose and fractionation. Conclusions: Presently, data regarding clinical benefits of local therapy on overall and other survival outcomes is still sparse for oligometastatic NSCLC. However, with rapidly evolving data being generated supporting local therapy in oligometastatic NSCLC, this guideline attempted to frame recommendations as a function of the quality of data available to make decisions in a multidisciplinary approach incorporating patient goals and tolerances.

Thymic epithelial tumors are presently staged using a consistent TNM classification developed by the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer (IASLC) and approved by the Union for International Cancer Control and the American Joint Committee on Cancer. The stage classification is incorporated in the eight edition of the TNM classification of thoracic malignancies. The IASLC Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee (SPFC)-Thymic Domain (TD) is in charge for the next (ninth) edition expected in 2024. The present article represents the midterm report of the SPFC-TD: in particular, it describes the unresolved issues identified by the group in the current stage classification which are worth being addressed and discussed for the ninth edition of the TNM classification on the basis of the available data collected in the central thymic database which will be managed and analyzed by Cancer Research And Biostatistics. These issues are grouped into issues of general importance and those specifically related to T, N, and M categories. Each issue is described in reference to the most recent reports on the subject, and the priority assigned by the IASLC SPFC-TD for the discussion of the ninth edition is provided.

Purpose 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT is of utmost importance for radiation treatment (RT) planning and response monitoring in lung cancer patients, in both non-small and small cell lung cancer (NSCLC and SCLC). This topic has been addressed in guidelines composed by experts within the field of radiation oncology. However, up to present, there is no procedural guideline on this subject, with involvement of the nuclear medicine societies. Methods A literature review was performed, followed by a discussion between a multidisciplinary team of experts in the different fields involved in the RT planning of lung cancer, in order to guide clinical management. The project was led by experts of the two nuclear medicine societies (EANM and SNMMI) and radiation oncology (ESTRO). Results and conclusion This guideline results from a joint and dynamic collaboration between the relevant disciplines for this topic. It provides a worldwide, state of the art, and multidisciplinary guide to 2-[18F]FDG PET/CT RT planning in NSCLC and SCLC. These practical recommendations describe applicable updates for existing clinical practices, highlight potential flaws, and provide solutions to overcome these as well. Finally, the recent developments considered for future application are also reviewed.

This observational cohort study investigates neurocognitive functioning (NCF) and its associations with overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS) and patient-reported psychological toxicities in locally-advanced and metastatic non-small cell lung (NSCLC) cancer patients receiving loco-regional radiotherapy and/or systemic therapy. Objective NCF data was collected with six psychometrically validated neurocognitive tests. Subjective NCF was assessed with the cognitive domain of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items. Psychological toxicity data was collected with the patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events. Meaningful clinical important differences were determined for changes in NCF. Univariate Cox proportional hazards models and generalized linear models were used to determine statistical significance (p 0.01). In total, 50 patients were recruited. At baseline, 13 (26%) patients had an impaired objective NCF. Over time, deterioration was seen in 11% (n = 3), 5% (n = 1) and 6% (n = 1) of patients at 2-3, 6 and 12 months post-treatment. The OS of patients with a normal NCF at baseline was longer than those with an impaired baseline NCF (29.5 vs 17.1 months). No statistical significance has been reached between NCF and OS (p = .353) nor NCF and DFS (p = .251). Objective NCF was not correlated with subjective NCF (p = .193), nor anxiety (p = .504), depression (p = .513), memory problems (p = .813) and concentration problems (p = .813). Systemic treatment and loco-regional radiotherapy may have a temporarily negative impact on NCF in a small proportion of locally-advanced and metastatic NSCLC. Baseline NCF could be a predictor for OS.

The Quality Assurance project for stage III non-small cell lung cancer radiotherapy ProCaLung performed a multicentric two-step exercise evaluating mediastinal nodal Target Volume Definition and Delineation (TVD) variability and the opportunity for standardization. The TVD variability before and after providing detailed guidelines and the value of qualitative contour reviewing before applying quantitative measures were investigated. The case of a patient with stage III NSCLC and involved mediastinal lymph nodes was used as a basis for this study. Twenty-two radiation oncologists from nineteen centers in Belgium and Luxembourg participated in at least one of two phases of the project (before and after introduction of ProCaLung contouring guidelines). The resulting thirty-three mediastinal nodal GTV and CTV contours were then evaluated using a qualitative-before-quantitative (QBQ) approach. First, a qualitative analysis was performed, evaluating adherence to most recent guidelines. From this, a list of observed deviations was created and these were used to evaluate contour conformity. The second analysis was quantitative, using overlap and surface distance measures to compare contours within qualitative groups and between phases. A 'most robust' reference volume for these analyses was created using the STAPLE-algorithm and an averaging method. Five GTV and seven CTV qualitative groups were identified. Second step contours were more often in higher-conformity groups (p = 0.012 for GTV and p = 0.024 for CTV). Median Residual Mean Square Distances improved from 2.34 mm to 1.36 mm for GTV (p = 0.01) and from 4.53 mm to 1.58 mm for CTV (p

The status of lymph node involvement is a major compo-nent of the TNM staging system. The N categories for lung cancer have remained unchanged since the fourth edition of the TNM staging system, partly because of differences in nodal mapping nomenclature, partly because of insufficient details to verify possible alternative approaches for staging. In preparation for the rigorous analysis of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer database neces-sary for the ninth edition TNM staging system, members of the N-Descriptors Subcommittee of the International Asso-ciation for the Study of Lung Cancer Staging and Prognostic Factors Committee reviewed the evidence for alternative approaches to categorizing the extent of lymph node involvement with lung cancer, which is currently based solely on the anatomical location of lymph node metastasis. We reviewed the literature focusing on NSCLC to stimulate dialogue and mutual understanding among subcommittee members engaged in developing the ninth edition TNM staging system for lung cancer, which has been proposed for adoption by the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control in 2024. The discussion of the range of possible revision options for the N categories, including the pros and cons of counting lymph nodes, lymph node stations, or lymph node zones, also provides transparency to the process, explaining why certain options may be discarded, others deferred for future consideration. Finally, we provide a preliminary discussion of the future directions that the N-Descriptors Subcommit-tee might consider for the 10th edition and beyond.(c) 2022 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 2024, the overview for of sixth ferred struction Society The spectively Study data gested deferred allow gory. adopted solution staging and database.4,10

The role of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in stage III N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer patients remains controversial. PORT is still widely used among European thoracic radiation oncology experts with a clear decrease in its use for patients with completely resected pN+ NSCLC after the presentation of LungART trial results at ESMO 2020. The full publication of the LungART trial hopefully will shed additional light on the dilemma of the decision-making process for PORT in completely resected pN+ patients and identify the appropriate patients who might benefit from PORT.Background: The role of postoperative radiation therapy (PORT) in stage III N2 NSCLC is controversial. We analyzed decision-making for PORT among European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer. Methods: Twenty-two experts were asked before and after presentation of the results of the LungART trial to describe their decision criteria for PORT in the management of pN+ NSCLC patients. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analyzed. Results: Following decision criteria were identified: extracapsular nodal extension, incomplete lymph node resection, multistation lymph nodes, high nodal tumor load, poor response to induction chemotherapy, ineligibility to receive adjuvant chemotherapy, performance status, resection margin, lung function and cardiopulmonary comorbidities. The LungART results had impact on decision-making and reduced the number of recommendations for PORT. The only clear indication for PORT was a R1/2 resection. Six experts out of ten who initially recommended PORT for all R0 resected pN2 patients no longer used PORT routinely for these patients, while four still recommended PORT for all patients with pN2. Fourteen experts used PORT only for patients with risk factors, compared to eleven before the presentation of the LungART trial. Four experts stated that PORT was never recommended in R0 resected pN2 patients regardless of risk factors. Conclusion: After presentation of the LungART trial results at ESMO 2020, 82% of our experts still used PORT for stage III pN2 NSCLC patients with risk factors. The recommendation for PORT decreased, especially for patients without risk factors. Cardiopulmonary comorbidities became more relevant in the decision-making for PORT. (C) 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The status of lymph node involvement is a major component of the tumor, node, metastasis (TNM) staging system. The N categories for lung cancer have remained unchanged since the 4

In "Joint EANM/SNMMI/ESTRO Practice Recommendations for the Use of 2-[18F]FDG-PET/CT External Beam Radiation Treatment Planning in Lung Cancer V1.0" clinical indications for PET-CT in (non-)small cell lung cancer are highlighted and selective nodal irradiation is discussed. Additionally, concepts about target definition, target delineation and treatment evaluation are reviewed. (C) 2022 Published by Elsevier B.V.

Background: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) is a common treatment option for brain metastases secondary to non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Data from the QUARTZ trial suggest that WBRT can be omitted in selected patients and treated with optimal supportive care alone. Nevertheless, WBRT is still widely used to treat brain metastases secondary to NSCLC. We analysed decision criteria influencing the selection for WBRT among European radiation oncology experts. Methods: Twenty-two European radiation oncology experts in lung cancer as selected by the European Society for Therapeutic Radiation Oncology (ESTRO) for previous projects and by the Advisory Committee on Radiation Oncology Practice (ACROP) for lung cancer were asked to describe their strategies in the management of brain metastases of NSCLC. Treatment strategies were subsequently converted into decision trees and analysed for agreement and discrepancies. Results: Eight decision criteria (suitability for SRS, performance status, symptoms, eligibility for targeted therapy, extra-cranial tumour control, age, prognostic scores and "Zugzwang" (the compulsion to treat)) were identified. WBRT was recommended by a majority of the European experts for symptomatic patients not suitable for radiosurgery or fractionated stereotactic radiotherapy. There was also a tendency to use WBRT in the ALK/EGFR/ROS1 negative NSCLC setting. Conclusion: Despite the results of the QUARTZ trial WBRT is still widely used among European radiation oncology experts. Keywords: Decision tree; Decision-making; NSCLC; QUARTZ; WBRT.

Radiation therapy is one of the core components of multidisciplinary cancer care. Although ~ 50% of all European cancer patients have an indication for radiotherapy at least once in the course of their disease, more than one out of four cancer patients in Europe do not receive the radiotherapy they need. There are multiple reasons for this underutilisation, with limited availability of the necessary resources – in terms of both trained personnel and equipment – being a major underlying cause of suboptimal access to radiotherapy. Moreover, large variations across European countries are observed, not only in available radiotherapy equipment and personnel per inhabitant or per cancer patient requiring radiotherapy, but also in workload. This variation is in part determined by the country's gross national income. Radiation therapy and technology are advancing quickly; hence, recommendations supporting resource planning and investment should reflect this dynamic environment and account for evolving treatment complexity and fractionation schedules. The forecasted increase in cancer incidence, the rapid introduction of innovative cancer treatments and the more active involvement of patients in the healthcare discussion are all factors that should be taken under consideration. In this continuously changing oncology landscape, reliable data on the actual provision and use of radiotherapy, the optimal evidence‐based demand and the future needs are crucial to inform cancer care planning and address and overcome the current inequalities in access to radiotherapy in Europe., While about one out of two cancer patients require radiotherapy, more than a quarter of those in need do not receive it. In Europe, large variation exists in radiotherapy provision (figure) and utilisation. In a rapidly changing radiotherapy and oncology environment, reliable data on radiotherapy needs are crucial to inform cancer plans, to address and overcome these current inequalities.

Objective: Our aim was to validate the prognostic relevance in NSCLC of potential residual tumor (R) descriptors, including the proposed International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer definition for uncertain resection, referred to as R(un). Methods: A total of 14,712 patients undergoing resection with full R status and survival were analyzed. The following were also evaluated: whether fewer than three N2 stations were explored, lobe-specific nodal dissection, extracapsular extension, highest lymph node station status, carcinoma in situ at the bronchial resection margin, and pleural lavage cytologic examination result. Revised categories of R0, R(un), R1, and R2 were tested for survival impact. Results: In all, 14,293 cases were R0, 263 were R1, and 156 were R2 (median survivals not reached, 33 months, and 29 months, respectively). R status correlated with T and N categories. A total of 9290 cases (63%) had three or more N2 stations explored and 6641 cases (45%) had lobespecific nodal dissection, correlated with increasing pN2. Extracapsular extension was present in 62 of 364 cases with available data (17%). The highest station was positive in 942 cases (6.4%). The pleural lavage cytologic examination result was positive in 59 of 1705 cases (3.5%): 13 had carcinoma in situ at the bronchial resection margin. After reassignment because of inadequate nodal staging in 56% of cases, 6070 cases were R0, 8185 were R(un), 301 were R1, and 156 were R2. In node-positive cases, the median survival times were 70, 50, and 30 months for RO, R(un) (p < 0.0001), and R1 (p < 0.001), respectively, with no significant difference between RO and R(un) in pN0 cases. Conclusions: R descriptors have prognostic relevance, with R(un) survival stratifying between R0 and R1. Therefore, a detailed evaluation of R factor is of particular importance in the design and analyses of clinical trials of adjuvant therapies. (C) 2019 International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Purpose/objective A national incentive brought about the instauration of systematic clinical audits of all Belgian radiotherapy departments (n = 25) from 2011 to 2015 using the International Atomic Energy Agency QUATRO (Quality Improvement Quality Assurance Team for Radiation Oncology) methodology. The impact of these audits was evaluated and the emitted recommendations originating from the audit reports were analysed to identify areas of weakness on a national basis. Method The QUATRO audits performed in each radiotherapy department gave rise to reports in which each department received a list of recommendations that it is free to implement. These audit reports were analyzed to identify common areas for which improvements were recommended. Moreover, questionnaires were sent to all departments in order to evaluate the overall usefulness of the recommendations as well as the relevancy and the actual impact of each individual recommendation. Results Of the 381 emitted recommendations, 34% concerned process optimization of which a quarter involved process improvement and protocol development. Twenty-seven percent of the recommendations concerned infrastructure of which one-third was related to the quality of the equipment or facility. Nineteen and 20% of recommendations addressed department organisational and staff issues respectively. When analysing the departments’ feedback questionnaires, 54% of the departments evaluated the audits’ recommendations as being very useful. Furthermore, 42.7% of the recommendations were found to be very relevant and 23.5% were deemed to have an important impact. Conclusion This first round of audits in Belgium allowed for the identification of common areas for improvements of practice in radiation oncology departments, with a focus on process optimization and infrastructure elements. Similarly, the audits’ emitted recommendations were globally deemed very relevant. Encouraged, by this analysis, a second cycle of audits has started in Belgium with a modified version of the QUATRO document (B-QUATRO).

Oligometastatic disease has been proposed as an intermediate state between localised and systemically metastasised disease. In the absence of randomised phase 3 trials, early clinical studies show improved survival when radical local therapy is added to standard systemic therapy for oligometastatic disease. However, since no biomarker for the identification of patients with true oligometastatic disease is clinically available, the diagnosis of oligometastatic disease is based solely on imaging findings. A small number of metastases on imaging could represent different clinical scenarios, which are associated with different prognoses and might require different treatment strategies. 20 international experts including 19 members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer OligoCare project developed a comprehensive system for characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease. We first did a systematic review of the literature to identify inclusion and exclusion criteria of prospective interventional oligometastatic disease clinical trials. Next, we used a Delphi consensus process to select a total of 17 oligometastatic disease characterisation factors that should be assessed in all patients treated with radical local therapy for oligometastatic disease, both within and outside of clinical trials. Using a second round of the Delphi method, we established a decision tree for oligometastatic disease classification together with a nomenclature. We agreed oligometastatic disease as the overall umbrella term. A history of polymetastatic disease before diagnosis of oligometastatic disease was used as the criterion to differentiate between induced oligometastatic disease (previous history of polymetastatic disease) and genuine oligometastatic disease (no history of polymetastatic disease). We further subclassified genuine oligometastatic disease into repeat oligometastatic disease (previous history of oligometastatic disease) and de-novo oligometastatic disease (first time diagnosis of oligometastatic disease). In de-novo oligometastatic disease, we differentiated between synchronous and metachronous oligometastatic disease. We did a final subclassification into oligorecurrence, oligoprogression, and oligopersistence, considering whether oligometastatic disease is diagnosed during a treatment-free interval or during active systemic therapy and whether or not an oligometastatic lesion is progressing on current imaging. This oligometastatic disease classification and nomenclature needs to be prospectively evaluated by the OligoCare study.

Background and purpose: Complex surgery and radiotherapy are the central pillars of loco-regional oncology treatment. This paper describes the reimbursement schemes used in radiation and complex surgical oncology, reports on literature and policy reviews. Material and methods: A systematic review of the literature of the reimbursement models has been carried out separately for radiotherapy and complex cancer surgery based on PRISMA guidelines. Using searches of PubMed and grey literature, we identified articles from scientific journals and reports published since 2000 on provider payment or reimbursement systems currently used in radiation oncology and complex cancer surgery, also including policy models. Results: Most European health systems reimburse radiotherapy using a budget-based, fee-for-service or fraction-based system; while few reimburse services according to an episode-based model. Also, the reimbursement models for cancer surgery are mostly restricted to differences embedded in the DRG system and adjustments applied to the fees, based on the complexity of each surgical procedure. There is an enormous variability in reimbursement across countries, resulting in different incentives and different amounts paid for the same therapeutic strategy. Conclusion: A reimbursement policy, based on the episode of care as the basic payment unit, is advocated for. Innovation should be tackled in a two-tier approach: one defining the common criteria for reimbursement of proven evidence-based interventions; another for financing emerging innovation with uncertain definitive value. Relevant clinical and economic data, also collected real-life, should support reimbursement systems that mirror the actual cost of evidence-based practice. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of British Association of Surgical Oncology and European Society of Surgical Oncology, and Elsevier B.V.