[Health-economic aspects of radiotherapy]. / Aspects économiques de la radiothérapie.

Cancer care poses a significant economic burden, challenging healthcare budgets to balance patient benefits with affordability. Radiotherapy takes up only a limited part of oncology budgets, but the cost is rarely clear-cut due to influential factors such as complexity of treatments, highly-trained personnel and technologies. Health-economic appraisal is complex and can be performed in several ways, balancing costs and outcomes, but not all approaches are equally suitable for assessment of radiotherapy interventions. The concept of «value-based healthcare¼ offers a broader perspective to health-economic appraisal, considering various outcomes and the cost of the total cycle of care, thus addressing some of the challenges in radiotherapy: the diversity of interventions, a broad range of outcomes (including organ preservation or local control) and challenges in evidence generation. However, as the existing value-based frameworks in oncology are aimed at systemic therapies, a tailored approach for radiotherapy interventions is necessary to enhance access to innovative care and optimize resource allocation. This article explores the economic aspects of radiotherapy, providing an overview of radiotherapy cost determinants and calculations, discussing different health-economic strategies and value-based healthcare, and how these can address the specific challenges in radiotherapy.

Le coût économique du cancer représente un fardeau significatif, nécessitant un équilibre entre les bénéfices et la viabilité financière des budgets de santé. La radiothérapie ne représente qu'une part limitée des budgets d'oncologie, mais le coût est rarement clairement défini en raison, entre autres, de la complexité des traitements et du recours à un personnel hautement qualifié. L'évaluation est complexe et peut être réalisée de plusieurs manières, en équilibrant les coûts et les résultats, mais toutes les approches médico-économiques ne sont pas également adaptées à l'évaluation de la radiothérapie. Le concept de «value-based healthcare¼, qui prend en compte différents résultats et le coût du cycle total des soins, peut résoudre certains des défis de la radiothérapie : la diversité des interventions, un large éventail de résultats (comme le contrôle local) et les défis liés à la production de données probantes. Cependant, comme les cadres existants basés sur «value¼ en oncologie visent les thérapies systémiques, une approche adaptée à la radiothérapie est nécessaire pour améliorer l'accès aux soins innovants et optimiser l'allocation des ressources. Cet article explore les aspects économiques de la radiothérapie, en présentant les déterminants des coûts, ainsi qu'une discussion sur diverses stratégies et sur la manière dont elles peuvent répondre aux défis spécifiques de la radiothérapie.

Metastases-directed stereotactic body radiotherapy in combination with targeted therapy or immunotherapy: systematic review and consensus recommendations by the EORTC-ESTRO OligoCare consortium.

Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) for patients with metastatic cancer, especially when characterised by a low tumour burden (ie, oligometastatic disease), receiving targeted therapy or immunotherapy has become a frequently practised and guideline-supported treatment strategy. Despite the increasing use in routine clinical practice, there is little information on the safety of combining SBRT with modern targeted therapy or immunotherapy and a paucity of high-level evidence to guide clinical management. A systematic literature review was performed to identify the toxicity profiles of combined metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy. These results served as the basis for an international Delphi consensus process among 28 interdisciplinary experts who are members of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) OligoCare consortium. Consensus was sought about risk mitigation strategies of metastases-directed SBRT combined with targeted therapy or immunotherapy; a potential need for and length of interruption to targeted therapy or immunotherapy around SBRT delivery; and potential adaptations of radiation dose and fractionation. Results of this systematic review and consensus process compile the best available evidence for safe combination of metastases-directed SBRT and targeted therapy or immunotherapy for patients with metastatic or oligometastatic cancer and aim to guide today's clinical practice and the design of future clinical trials.

European Groundshot-addressing Europe's cancer research challenges: a Lancet Oncology Commission.

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.

Health service planning to assess the expected impact of centralising specialist cancer services on travel times, equity, and outcomes: a national population-based modelling study.

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.

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.

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.

How public health services pay for radiotherapy in Europe: an ESTRO-HERO analysis of reimbursement.

Reimbursement is a key factor in defining which resources are made available to ensure quality, efficiency, availability, and access to specific health-care interventions. This Policy Review assesses publicly funded radiotherapy reimbursement systems in Europe. We did a survey of the national societies of radiation oncology in Europe, focusing on the general features and global structure of the reimbursement system, the coverage scope, and level for typical indications. The annual expenditure covering radiotherapy in each country was also collected. Most countries have a predominantly budgetary-based system. Variability was the major finding, both in the components of the treatment considered for reimbursement, and in the fees paid for specific treatment techniques, fractionations, and indications. Annual expenses for radiotherapy, including capital investment, available in 12 countries, represented between 4·3% and 12·3% (average 7·8%) of the cancer care budget. Although an essential pillar in multidisciplinary oncology, radiotherapy is an inexpensive modality with a modest contribution to total cancer care costs. Scientific societies and policy makers across Europe need to discuss new strategies for reimbursement, combining flexibility with incentives to improve productivity and quality, allowing radiation oncology services to follow evolving evidence.

Characterisation and classification of oligometastatic disease: a European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus recommendation.

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.

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) combined with immunotherapy (L19-IL2) versus standard of care in stage IV NSCLC patients, ImmunoSABR: a multicentre, randomised controlled open-label phase II trial.

BACKGROUND: About 50% of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients have metastatic disease at initial diagnosis, which limits their treatment options and, consequently, the 5-year survival rate (15%). Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, have become standard of care (SOC) for most good performance status patients. However, most patients will not obtain long-term benefit and new treatment strategies are therefore needed. We previously demonstrated clinical safety of the tumour-selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, consisting of the anti-ED-B scFv L19 antibody coupled to IL2, combined with stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR). METHODS: This investigator-initiated, multicentric, randomised controlled open-label phase II clinical trial will test the hypothesis that the combination of SABR and L19-IL2 increases progression free survival (PFS) in patients with limited metastatic NSCLC. One hundred twenty-six patients will be stratified according to their metastatic load (oligo-metastatic: ≤5 or poly-metastatic: 6 to 10) and randomised to the experimental-arm (E-arm) or the control-arm (C-arm). The C-arm will receive SOC, according to the local protocol. E-arm oligo-metastatic patients will receive SABR to all lesions followed by L19-IL2 therapy; radiotherapy for poly-metastatic patients consists of irradiation of one (symptomatic) to a maximum of 5 lesions (including ICI in both arms if this is the SOC). The accrual period will be 2.5-years, starting after the first centre is initiated and active. Primary endpoint is PFS at 1.5-years based on blinded radiological review, and secondary endpoints are overall survival, toxicity, quality of life and abscopal response. Associative biomarker studies, immune monitoring, CT-based radiomics, stool collection, iRECIST and tumour growth rate will be performed. DISCUSSION: The combination of SABR with or without ICI and the immunocytokine L19-IL2 will be tested as 1st, 2nd or 3rd line treatment in stage IV NSCLC patients in 14 centres located in 6 countries. This bimodal and trimodal treatment approach is based on the direct cytotoxic effect of radiotherapy, the tumour selective immunocytokine L19-IL2, the abscopal effect observed distant from the irradiated metastatic site(s) and the memory effect. The first results are expected end 2023. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ImmunoSABR Protocol Code: NL67629.068.18; EudraCT: 2018-002583-11; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03705403; ISRCTN ID: ISRCTN49817477; Date of registration: 03-April-2019.

Towards an evidence-informed value scale for surgical and radiation oncology: a multi-stakeholder perspective.

Surgery and radiotherapy, two locoregional cancer treatments, are essential to help improve cancer outcomes, control, and palliation. The continued evolution in treatment processes, techniques, and technologies-often at substantially increased costs-demands for direction on outcomes that are most valued by patients, and the evidence that is required before clinical adoption of these practices. Three recently introduced frameworks-the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework, and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Blocks-which all help define the value of oncology treatments, were appraised with a focus on their methods and definition of patient benefit. In this Review, we investigate the applicability of these frameworks to surgical and radiotherapy innovations. Findings show that these frameworks are not immediately transferable to locoregional cancer treatments. Moreover, the lack of emphasis on patient perspective and the reliance on traditional, trial-based endpoints such as survival, disease-free survival, and safety, calls for a new framework that includes real-world evidence with focus on the whole spectrum of patient-centred endpoints. Such an evidence-informed value scale would safeguard against the proliferation of low-value innovation while simultaneously increasing access to treatments that show significant improvements in the outcomes of cancer care.

Scale-up of radiotherapy for cervical cancer in the era of human papillomavirus vaccination in low-income and middle-income countries: a model-based analysis of need and economic impact.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy is standard of care for cervical cancer, but major global gaps in access exist, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. We modelled the health and economic benefits of a 20-year radiotherapy scale-up to estimate the long-term demand for treatment in the context of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination. METHODS: We applied the Global Task Force on Radiotherapy for Cancer Control investment framework to model the health and economic benefits of scaling up external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy for cervical cancer in upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income, and low-income countries between 2015 and 2035. We estimated the unique costs of external-beam radiotherapy and brachytherapy and included a specific valuation of women's caregiving contributions. Model outcomes life-years gained and the human capital and full income net present value of investment. We estimated the effects of stage at diagnosis, radiotherapy delivery system, and simultaneous HPV vaccination (75% coverage) up to a time horizon set at 2072. FINDINGS: For the period from 2015 to 2035, we estimated that 9·4 million women in low-income and middle-income countries required treatment with external-beam radiotherapy, of which 7·0 million also required treatment with brachytherapy. Incremental scale-up of radiotherapy in these countries from 2015 to meet optimal radiotherapy demand by 2035 yielded 11·4 million life-years gained, $59·3 billion in human capital net present value (-$1·5 billion in low-income, $19·9 billion in lower-middle-income, and $40·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries), and $151·5 billion in full income net present value ($1·5 billion in low-income countries, $53·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $96·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Benefits increased with advanced stage of cervical cancer and more efficient scale up of radiotherapy. Bivalent HPV vaccination of 12-year-old girls resulted in a 3·9% reduction in incident cases from 2015-2035. By 2072, when the first vaccinated cohort of girls reaches 70 years of age, vaccination yielded a 22·9% reduction in cervical cancer incidence, with 38·4 million requiring external-beam radiotherapy and 28·8 million requiring brachytherapy. INTERPRETATION: Effective cervical cancer control requires a comprehensive strategy. Even with HPV vaccination, radiotherapy treatment scale-up remains essential and produces large health benefits and a strong return on investment to countries at different levels of development. FUNDING: None.

A phase III randomized-controlled, single-blind trial to improve quality of life with stereotactic body radiotherapy for patients with painful bone metastases (ROBOMET).

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases represent an important source of morbidity in cancer patients, mostly due to severe pain. Radiotherapy is an established symptomatic treatment for painful bone metastases, however, when conventional techniques are used, the effectiveness is moderate. Stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT), delivering very high doses in a limited number of fractions in a highly conformal manner, could potentially be more effective and less toxic. METHODS: This is a phase III, randomized-controlled, single-blind, multicenter study evaluating the response rate of antalgic radiotherapy for painful bone metastases and the acute toxicity associated with this treatment. A total of 126 patients will be randomly assigned to receive either the standard schedule of a single fraction of 8.0 Gy delivered through three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy or a single fraction of 20.0 Gy delivered through SBRT. Primary endpoint is pain response at the treated site at 1 month after radiotherapy. Secondary endpoints are pain flare at 24-48-72 h after radiotherapy, duration of pain response, re-irradiation need, acute toxicity, late toxicity, quality of life and subsequent serious skeletal events. In a supplementary analysis, patient-compliance for a paper-and-pencil questionnaire will be compared with an electronic mode. DISCUSSION: If a dose-escalated approach within the context of single fraction stereotactic body radiotherapy could improve the pain response to radiotherapy and minimize acute toxicity, this would have an immediate impact on the quality of life for a large number of patients with advanced cancer. Potential disadvantages of this technique include increased pain flare or a higher incidence of radiation-induced fractures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Ethics committee of the GZA Hospitals (B099201732915) approved this study on September 4th 2018. Trial registered on Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03831243 ) on February 5th 2019.

Inter-observer variability in target delineation increases during adaptive treatment of head-and-neck and lung cancer.

Introduction: Inter-observer variability (IOV) in target volume delineation is a well-documented source of geometric uncertainty in radiotherapy. Such variability has not yet been explored in the context of adaptive re-delineation based on imaging data acquired during treatment. We compared IOV in the pre- and mid-treatment setting using expert primary gross tumour volume (GTV) and clinical target volume (CTV) delineations in locoregionally advanced head-and-neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and (non-)small cell lung cancer [(N)SCLC]. Material and methods: Five and six observers participated in the HNSCC and (N)SCLC arm, respectively, and provided delineations for five cases each. Imaging data consisted of CT studies partly complemented by FDG-PET and was provided in two separate phases for pre- and mid-treatment. Global delineation compatibility was assessed with a volume overlap metric (the Generalised Conformity Index), while local extremes of IOV were identified through the standard deviation of surface distances from observer delineations to a median consensus delineation. Details of delineation procedures, in particular, GTV to CTV expansion and adaptation strategies, were collected through a questionnaire. Results: Volume overlap analysis revealed a worsening of IOV in all but one case per disease site, which failed to reach significance in this small sample (p-value range .063-.125). Changes in agreement were propagated from GTV to CTV delineations, but correlation could not be formally demonstrated. Surface distance based analysis identified longitudinal target extent as a pervasive source of disagreement for HNSCC. High variability in (N)SCLC was often associated with tumours abutting consolidated lung tissue or potentially invading the mediastinum. Adaptation practices were variable between observers with fewer than half stating that they consistently adapted pre-treatment delineations during treatment. Conclusion: IOV in target volume delineation increases during treatment, where a disparity in institutional adaptation practices adds to the conventional causes of IOV. Consensus guidelines are urgently needed.

Use of modern imaging methods to facilitate trials of metastasis-directed therapy for oligometastatic disease in prostate cancer: a consensus recommendation from the EORTC Imaging Group.

Oligometastatic disease represents a clinical and anatomical manifestation between localised and polymetastatic disease. In prostate cancer, as with other cancers, recognition of oligometastatic disease enables focal, metastasis-directed therapies. These therapies potentially shorten or postpone the use of systemic treatment and can delay further metastatic progression, thus increasing overall survival. Metastasis-directed therapies require imaging methods that definitively recognise oligometastatic disease to validate their efficacy and reliably monitor response, particularly so that morbidity associated with inappropriately treating disease subsequently recognised as polymetastatic can be avoided. In this Review, we assess imaging methods used to identify metastatic prostate cancer at first diagnosis, at biochemical recurrence, or at the castration-resistant stage. Standard imaging methods recommended by guidelines have insufficient diagnostic accuracy for reliably diagnosing oligometastatic disease. Modern imaging methods that use PET-CT with tumour-specific radiotracers (choline or prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand), and increasingly whole-body MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging, allow earlier and more precise identification of metastases. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Imaging Group suggests clinical algorithms to integrate modern imaging methods into the care pathway at the various stages of prostate cancer to identify oligometastatic disease. The EORTC proposes clinical trials that use modern imaging methods to evaluate the benefits of metastasis-directed therapies.

Practice-changing radiation therapy trials for the treatment of cancer: where are we 150 years after the birth of Marie Curie?

As we mark 150 years since the birth of Marie Curie, we reflect on the global advances made in radiation oncology and the current status of radiation therapy (RT) research. Large-scale international RT clinical trials have been fundamental in driving evidence-based change and have served to improve cancer management and to reduce side effects. Radiation therapy trials have also improved practice by increasing quality assurance and consistency in treatment protocols across multiple centres. This review summarises some of the key RT practice-changing clinical trials over the last two decades, in four common cancer sites for which RT is a crucial component of curative treatment: breast, lung, urological and lower gastro-intestinal cancer. We highlight the global inequality in access to RT, and the work of international organisations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO), and the United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute Clinical and Translational Radiotherapy Research Working Group (CTRad), that aim to improve access to RT and facilitate radiation research. We discuss some emerging RT technologies including proton beam therapy and magnetic resonance linear accelerators and predict likely future directions in clinical RT research.

External partial breast irradiation in prone position: how to improve accuracy?

INTRODUCTION: In view of the limited incremental benefit between whole breast irradiation (WBI), accelerated partial breast irradiation (APBI) and omission of radiotherapy in favorable early-stage breast cancer (ESBC), APBI can only be justified if it combines adequate target coverage with the lowest achievable toxicity. Interobserver exercises demonstrated the difficulty of precise target delineation, especially in prone position; information on accuracy is even scarcer. We tested the impact of inserting an additional indicator clip, marking the depth of the tumor in the breast, and the added value of a preoperative CT in treatment position on precision and accuracy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 12 patients, tumor bed delineation was performed by four radiation oncologists, with CTVstandard (clinical target volume) based on standard delineation guidelines, CTVclip resulting from a 1-2-cm symmetrical expansion with the indicator clip as center and CTVclip_CT expanding from the midpoint between the indicator clip and preoperative gross tumor volume (GTV) as center. Precision was measured as the mean pairwise Jaccard index (JIpairs) between observers, accuracy as the mean overlap between GTV and respective CTVs. RESULTS: JIpairs was 0.38 for CTVstandard, 0.75 for CTVclip and 0.59 for CTVclip_CT. Overlap rate of GTV with CTVs was respectively 0.48, 0.67 and improved further to 0.88 for CTVclip_CT. High-dose coverage of GTV (D95 and D90) improved with an indicator clip, but the most optimal result was reached when preoperative CT was added. CONCLUSIONS: If EB-APBI in prone position is aimed for, an indicator clip intended to mark the depth of the tumor increases the probability of accurate target coverage, but cannot entirely replace the added value of a preoperative CT in treatment position. Avoiding the cost and effort of such CT implies a risk of missing the target, especially when small volumes are aimed for. Increasing target volumes to reduces this risk, questions the concept of APBI.

Interobserver delineation uncertainty in involved-node radiation therapy (INRT) for early-stage Hodgkin lymphoma: on behalf of the Radiotherapy Committee of the EORTC lymphoma group.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In early-stage classical Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) the target volume nowadays consists of the volume of the originally involved nodes. Delineation of this volume on a post-chemotherapy CT-scan is challenging. We report on the interobserver variability in target volume definition and its impact on resulting treatment plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two representative cases were selected (1: male, stage IB, localization: left axilla; 2: female, stage IIB, localizations: mediastinum and bilateral neck). Eight experienced observers individually defined the clinical target volume (CTV) using involved-node radiotherapy (INRT) as defined by the EORTC-GELA guidelines for the H10 trial. A consensus contour was generated and the standard deviation computed. We investigated the overlap between observer and consensus contour [Sørensen-Dice coefficient (DSC)] and the magnitude of gross deviations between the surfaces of the observer and consensus contour (Hausdorff distance). 3D-conformal (3D-CRT) and intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) plans were calculated for each contour in order to investigate the impact of interobserver variability on each treatment modality. Similar target coverage was enforced for all plans. RESULTS: The median CTV was 120 cm3 (IQR: 95-173 cm3) for Case 1, and 255 cm3 (IQR: 183-293 cm3) for Case 2. DSC values were generally high (>0.7), and Hausdorff distances were about 30 mm. The SDs between all observer contours, providing an estimate of the systematic error associated with delineation uncertainty, ranged from 1.9 to 3.8 mm (median: 3.2 mm). Variations in mean dose resulting from different observer contours were small and were not higher in IMRT plans than in 3D-CRT plans. CONCLUSIONS: We observed considerable differences in target volume delineation, but the systematic delineation uncertainty of around 3 mm is comparable to that reported in other tumour sites. This report is a first step towards calculating an evidence-based planning target volume margin for INRT in HL.

Expanding global access to radiotherapy.

Radiotherapy is a critical and inseparable component of comprehensive cancer treatment and care. For many of the most common cancers in low-income and middle-income countries, radiotherapy is essential for effective treatment. In high-income countries, radiotherapy is used in more than half of all cases of cancer to cure localised disease, palliate symptoms, and control disease in incurable cancers. Yet, in planning and building treatment capacity for cancer, radiotherapy is frequently the last resource to be considered. Consequently, worldwide access to radiotherapy is unacceptably low. We present a new body of evidence that quantifies the worldwide coverage of radiotherapy services by country. We show the shortfall in access to radiotherapy by country and globally for 2015-35 based on current and projected need, and show substantial health and economic benefits to investing in radiotherapy. The cost of scaling up radiotherapy in the nominal model in 2015-35 is US$26·6 billion in low-income countries, $62·6 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $94·8 billion in upper-middle-income countries, which amounts to $184·0 billion across all low-income and middle-income countries. In the efficiency model the costs were lower: $14·1 billion in low-income, $33·3 billion in lower-middle-income, and $49·4 billion in upper-middle-income countries-a total of $96·8 billion. Scale-up of radiotherapy capacity in 2015-35 from current levels could lead to saving of 26·9 million life-years in low-income and middle-income countries over the lifetime of the patients who received treatment. The economic benefits of investment in radiotherapy are very substantial. Using the nominal cost model could produce a net benefit of $278·1 billion in 2015-35 ($265·2 million in low-income countries, $38·5 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $239·3 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Investment in the efficiency model would produce in the same period an even greater total benefit of $365·4 billion ($12·8 billion in low-income countries, $67·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $284·7 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns, by the human-capital approach, are projected to be less with the nominal cost model, amounting to $16·9 billion in 2015-35 (-$14·9 billion in low-income countries; -$18·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $50·5 billion in upper-middle-income countries). The returns with the efficiency model were projected to be greater, however, amounting to $104·2 billion (-$2·4 billion in low-income countries, $10·7 billion in lower-middle-income countries, and $95·9 billion in upper-middle-income countries). Our results provide compelling evidence that investment in radiotherapy not only enables treatment of large numbers of cancer cases to save lives, but also brings positive economic benefits.

G-8 indicates overall and quality-adjusted survival in older head and neck cancer patients treated with curative radiochemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based guidelines concerning the older head and neck cancer (HNCA) patient are lacking. Accurate patient selection for optimal care management is therefore challenging. We examined if geriatric assessment is indicative of long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and overall survival in this unique population. METHODS: All HNCA patients, aged ≥65 years, eligible for curative radio(chemo)therapy were evaluated with the Geriatric-8 (G-8) questionnaire and a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Euroqol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and survival were collected until 36 months post treatment start. Repeated measures ANOVA was applied to analyse HRQOL evolution in 'fit' and 'vulnerable' patients, defined by G-8. Kaplan-Meier curves and cox proportional hazard analysis were established for determination of the prognostic value of geriatric assessments. Quality-adjusted survival was calculated in both patient subgroups. RESULTS: One hundred patients were recruited. Seventy-two percent of patients were considered vulnerable according to CGA (≥2 abnormal tests). Fit patients maintained a relatively acceptable long-term HRQOL, whilst vulnerable patients showed significantly lower median health states. The difference remained apparent at 36 months. Vulnerability, as classified by G-8 or CGA, came forward as independent predictor for lower EQ-5D index scores. After consideration of confounders, a significantly lower survival was observed in patients defined vulnerable according to G-8, compared to fit patients. A similar trend was seen based on CGA. Calculation of quality-adjusted survival showed significantly less remaining life months in perfect health in vulnerable patients, compared to fit ones. CONCLUSIONS: G-8 is indicative of quality-adjusted survival, and should be considered at time of treatment decisions for the older HNCA patient.