Practice of radiation therapy for anal cancer in Austria-a survey on behalf of the Austrian radiation oncology society gastrointestinal tumor group (ÖGRO-GIT).

PURPOSE: We conducted a patterns-of-care survey on chemoradiation for locoregionally confined anal cancer in Austria to evaluate areas of disagreement and to identify possible targets for further standardization. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire comprising 38 questions was sent to all Austrian radiation oncology departments. Results were analyzed descriptively and compared to two international guidelines. RESULTS: The response rate was 93%. Work-up generally includes DRE, endoscopy, and cross-sectional imaging of chest/abdomen and pelvis. PET-CT is used by 38%. Screening for HIV and biopsies of suspicious lymph nodes are infrequently used. All centers perform IMRT, mainly with daily IGRT. Median doses to the primary are 54.7 Gy (T1-2) and 59.4 Gy (T3-4). Suspicious nodes receive a boost (median dose 54 Gy), while elective nodal areas are mainly treated with 45-50.4 Gy. Target delineation of elective nodal areas seems generally uniform, although disagreement exists regarding inclusion of the common iliac nodes. No agreement was found for OAR-delineation and dose constraints. Concurrent chemotherapy is mitomycin and 5­FU/capecitabine. Supportive care beyond skin care is infrequently offered. Intensive follow-up is performed for at least 5 years. Treatment of T1N0 shows considerable disagreement. CONCLUSION: We found a high rate of agreement between the centers and concordance with major guidelines. PET-CT, routine HIV testing, and biopsies of suspicious LN seem underrepresented. The largest controversy regarding target volumes concerns inclusion of the common iliac nodes. Prescribed doses are generally in line with the recommendations or higher. OAR delineation, dose constraints, supportive care, and treatment of early anal cancer represent areas for further standardization.

[Subjective psychological stress and need for psychosocial support in cancer patients during radiotherapy treatment]. / Subjektiv erlebte Belastung und Bedarf an psychosozialer Unterstützung bei Tumorpatienten in strahlentherapeutischer Behandlung.

PURPOSE: Psychosocial distress and patient attitude towards psychosocial support as well as the correlations with clinical and sociodemographic characteristics should be assessed. METHODS: The stress due to cancer was measured in a consecutive sample of tumor patients at the start of radiotherapy (n = 117) by use of the Hornheide Questionnaire. In addition, the interest of these patients in professional psychosocial support was assessed with the help of the Questionnaire for Psychosocial Support. RESULTS: Patients in the course of radiotherapy and patients with a poor prognosis and advanced disease were more strongly distressed. 32.7% of patients wished professional psychosocial support from the oncologist treating them, 40.6% of the patients wished support from the oncologist and additionally from a psychotherapist or social worker. Interest in professional psychosocial support correlated with the amount of distress, but not with sociodemographic variables. CONCLUSIONS: Results stress the importance of training programs for oncologists in order to improve their ability to detect psychosocial distress in cancer patients and to offer adequate emotional support to them.