Coronavirus disease 2019 and radiation oncology-survey on the impact of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic on health care professionals in radiation oncology.

BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has changed the lives of most humans worldwide. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of the SARS-CoV­2 pandemic on health care professionals (HCPs) in radiation oncology facilities. METHODS: We distributed an online survey to HCPs in radiation oncology (physicians, medical physics experts, radiology assistants/radiation therapists, nurses, and administrative personnel). The survey was completed by 334 participants between May 23 and June 9, 2020. RESULTS: In 66.2% of the cases, HCPs reported a shortage of protective clothing. The protective measures were regarded as very reasonable by 47.4%, while 0.8% regarded them as not reasonable (rather reasonable: 44.0%; less reasonable 7.8%). 29.0% of the participants had children who needed care. The most frequently used care options were public emergency childcare (36.1%) and private childcare (e.g. relatives/friends). HCPs reported about additional work burden (fully agreed: 27.2%, rather agreed: 34.4%, less agreed: 28.2%, not agreed: 10.2%), and reduced work satisfaction (fully agreed: 11.7%, rather agreed: 29.6%, less agreed: 39.8%, not agreed: 18.9%). 12.9% and 29.0% of the participants were fully or rather mentally strained (less mentally strained: 44.0%, not mentally strained: 14.1%). CONCLUSION: We must learn from this pandemic how to prepare for further outbreaks and similar conditions. This includes the vast availability of protective clothing and efficient tracing of infection chains among the HCPs, but also secured childcare programs and experienced mental health support are crucial. Further, work satisfaction and appreciation by employers is essential.

A Five-Year report on the conception and establishment of the MSc Radiation Biology at the Technical University of Munich.

PURPOSE: The MSc Radiation Biology course is a highly interdisciplinary degree program placing radiation biology at the interface between biology, medicine, and physics, as well as their associated technologies. The goal was to establish an internationally acknowledged program with diverse and heterogeneous student cohorts, who benefit from each other academically as well as culturally. We have completed a Five-Year evaluation of the program to assess our qualification profile and the further direction we want to take. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We evaluated the student cohort's data from the last 5 years regarding gender, age, and nationality as well as the highest degree before applying and career path after graduation. RESULTS: Data shows a great diversity regarding nationalty as well as undergraduate background. Cohort sizes could be increased and future prospects mainly aimed to a PhD. Measures after regular quality meetings and students' feedback led to improving the curriculum and workload, teacher's training, and changes to examination regulations. CONCLUSIONS: After 5 years, statistics show that our expectations have been met exceedingly. All graduates had excellent career opportunities reflecting the necessity of this MSc and its topics. We are continuously working on improving the program and adapting the curriculum to the requirements in radiation sciences. The future vision includes an expansion of the program as well as undergraduate education opportunities in this field.

Students' expectations in an international Master of Science course in radiation biology.

PURPOSE: We assessed students' expectations to a full two-year Master of Science course regarding workload, extracurricular activities, learning methods, and career plans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire was handed out to all students in the MSc radiation biology course. Questions evaluated the time for study and lectures expected a desire for specific teaching and testing formats, expectations from extracurricular activities as well as the motivation to study the subject and the future career plans. All students (100%) enrolled in the first semester were handed out and completed the questionnaire. RESULTS: Most students had learned about the course from the internet (68.75%) or received information from teachers or professors (25%). Two students stated that all disciplines were equally relevant (25%). Others students made clear preferences: fourteen voted molecular biology (87.5%) as relevant, radiation protection in 93.75%, 81.25% consider physics the most important topic, followed by immunology (62.5%). Tutorials and lectures were preferred teaching formats. Generally, a workload of 20 hours per week is preferred. CONCLUSIONS: An ongoing feedback loop is important in designing a modern Master of Science course in the context of the Bologna process. Valuable information is given by students and should be integrated continuously in the design and continuation process.

Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery for intracerebral metastases of solid tumors (NepoMUC): a phase I dose escalation trial.

BACKGROUND: More than 25% of patients with solid cancers develop intracerebral metastases. Aside of surgery, radiation therapy (RT) is a mainstay in the treatment of intracerebral metastases. Postoperative fractionated stereotactic RT (FSRT) to the resection cavity of intracerebral metastases is a treatment of choice to reduce the risk of local recurrence. However, FSRT has to be delayed until a sufficient wound healing is attained; hence systemic therapy might be postponed. Neoadjuvant stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) might offer advantages over adjuvant FSRT in terms of better target delineation and an earlier start of systemic chemotherapy. Here, we conducted a study to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of neoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases. METHODS: This is a single-center, phase I dose escalation study on neoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases that will be conducted at the Klinikum rechts der Isar Hospital, Technical University of Munich. The rule-based traditional 3 + 3 design for this trial with 3 dose levels and 4 different cohorts depending on lesion size will be applied. The primary endpoint is the MTD for which no dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) occur. The adverse events of each participant will be evaluated according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0 continuously during the study until the first follow-up visit (4-6 weeks after surgery). Secondary endpoints include local control rate, survival, immunological tumor characteristics, quality of life (QoL), CTCAE grade of late clinical, neurological, and neurocognitive toxicities. In addition to the intracerebral metastasis which is treated with neoadjuvant SRS and resection up to four additional intracerebral metastases can be treated with definitive SRS. Depending on the occurrence of DLT up to 72 patients will be enrolled. The recruitment phase will last for 24 months. DISCUSSION: Neoadjuvant SRS for intracerebral metastases offers potential advantages over postoperative SRS to the resection cavity, such as better target volume definition with subsequent higher efficiency of eliminating tumor cells, and lower damage to surrounding healthy tissue, and much-needed systemic chemotherapy could be initiated more rapidly. Trial registration The local ethical review committee of Technical University of Munich (199/18S) approved this study on September 05, 2018. This trial was registered on German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00016613; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016613) on January 29, 2019.

Cancer clinical trials - Survey evaluating patient participation and acceptance in a university-based Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC).

INTRODUCTION: Prospective clinical trials are essential to translate new therapy concepts or rather any scientific development into the medical routine. Besides a sophisticated trial protocol, the success of clinical trials depends on patient recruitment and participation. Patient recruitment remains a challenge and depends on several factors. To get a current picture of the patients' attitude, we conducted the present survey. METHODS: We designed a survey with seven questions, which was given to all oncological patients treated within a timeframe of three months between Mai and July 2017. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. The questionnaire mainly inquires patients' participation in clinical trials in a university-based setting, their attitude towards clinical trials regarding risks and benefits, and their source of information in this context. RESULTS: 771 patients (1:1 male/female) participated with a median age of 61 years (range 18-91 years) with a response rate of 71.5%. Of all, 17.8% (137/771) were participating in a clinical trial. The most mentioned reason was to serve medical progress and cancer research. Out of the patients not currently participating in a trial, 79 (12.7%, 79/623) refusers named the following main reasons: extensive travel time to the clinic, no therapeutic advantage, and too time-consuming. Out of the patients not offered to take part in a trial, 265 (51.0%, 265/520) would participate if offered. Of all patients, 8.3% (64/771) used the clinics' homepage as a source of information, of those 79.7% (51/64) were satisfied with its content. To enhance patient recruitment strategies, we asked how patients wish to be informed about possible trials: More than half (52.0%) of the questioned patients preferred an individual medical consultation with their physician.We further analyzed the trial participation depending on age, gender, unit, and tumor entity. We could show a significant influence of age (p < 0.001) but not for gender (p = 0.724). The trial participation was also significantly associated with the treating unit (p < 0.001) and tumor entity (p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients are willing to participate in clinical trials. Better information strategies need to be implemented. Physicians need to be aware of running trials within their department and must counseling counsel patients effectively to improve recruitment. Trial concepts should keep in mind patients' needs including an adequate number of appointments, positive risk-benefit profiles, and information material.

Master of Science (MSc) Program in Radiation Biology: An Interdepartmental Course Bridging the Gap between Radiation-Related Preclinical and Clinical Disciplines to Prepare Next-Generation Medical Scientists.

Radiation biology is a highly interdisciplinary field at the interface of biology, physics, and medicine. It is characterized by rapid advances in biological and technical knowledge. The potential for using these advances to optimize medical care, radiation protection, and related fields can be exploited only with complementary activities to support the education of young academics. A small number of academic institutions have committed resources into radiation-related courses and curricula; however, few offer a comprehensive interdepartmental research and training program. At the Technical University of Munich (TUM), a full Master of Science (MSc) course in radiation biology has been established. This article describes the TUM MSc radiation biology program, discusses the scope of the field, the teaching goals, and the interdisciplinary curriculum. Detailed information on the full MSc program can be found continuously updated at www.radonc.med.tum.de/masterradiationbiology.

Mobile Health in Oncology: A Patient Survey About App-Assisted Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: In the last decade, the health care sector has been enriched by numerous innovations such as apps and connected devices that assist users in weight reduction and diabetes management. However, only a few native apps in the oncological context exist, which support patients during treatment and aftercare. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to analyze patients' acceptance regarding app use and to investigate the functions of an oncological app that are most required, and the primary reasons for patients to refuse app-assisted cancer care. METHODS: We designed and conducted a survey with 23 questions, inquiring patients about their technical knowledge and equipment, as well as the possible advantages and disadvantages, data transfer, and general functionality of an app. RESULTS: A total of 375 patients participated; the participation rate was 60.7% (375/618). Gender distribution was about 3:4 (female:male) with a median age of 59 years (range 18-92 years). Whereas 69.6% (261/375) of patients used mobile devices, 16.3% (61/375) did not own one, and 9.1% (34/375) only used a personal computer (PC). About half of the patients rated their usability skills as very good and good (18.9% 71/375; 35.2% 132/375), 23.5% (88/375) described their skills as intermediate, and 14.4% (54/375) as bad. Of all patients, 182 (48.5%, 182/375) were willing to send data to their treating clinic via an app, that is, to a server (61.0% 111/182) or as email (33.5%, 61/182). About two-thirds (68.7%, 125/182) believed that additional and regularly sent data would be an ideal complement to the standard follow-up procedure. Additionally, 86.8% (158/182) wished to be contacted by a physician when entered data showed irregularities. Because of lack of skills (34.4%, 56/163), concerns about the use of data (35.0%, 57/163), lack of capable devices (25.8%, 42/163), and the wish for personal contact with the treating physician (47.2%, 77/163), a total of 163 (43.5%, 163/375) patients refused to use an app. Pearson correlation showed a significant but mild relationship between age and app use (P=.03, r=-.12), favoring younger age; male gender correlated as well (P=.04; r=-.11). CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the introduction of mobile apps needs to follow different strategies depending on the patients' attitude. Age and gender seem to be the strongest predictive factors. For oncology patients, our survey showed that about half of the patients were willing to send data via an app supporting their treatment. In the future, clinical data such as quality of life and treatment satisfaction recorded by mobile health (mHealth) devices could be used to evaluate and improve therapy workflow. Furthermore, apps could support classical visits, document adverse effects, and remind patients of treatment dates or drug intake.

Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) as Part of the Oncological Treatment: Survey about Patients' Attitude towards CAM in a University-Based Oncology Center in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: To understand if and which patients would be open-minded to Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use parallel to their oncological treatment. Moreover, we sought to determine which methods are most accepted and which are the primary motivators to use CAM. METHODS: We developed and anonymously conducted a questionnaire for patients in the oncology center (TU Munich). Questions focus on different CAM methods, previous experiences, and willingness to apply or use CAM when offered in a university-based setting. RESULTS: A total of 171 of 376 patients (37.4% women, 62.0% men, 0.6% unknown) participated. This corresponds to a return rate of 45%. Median age was 64 years (17-87 years). Of all participants, 15.2% used CAM during their oncological therapy; 32.7% have used it in the past. The majority (81.9%) was not using CAM during therapy; 55.5% have not used CAM in the past respectively. The analysis revealed a significant correlation between education and CAM use during therapy (r = 0.18; p = 0.02), and CAM use in the past (r = 0.17; p = 0.04). Of all patients using CAM during therapy, favored methods were food supplements (42.3%), vitamins/minerals (42.3%), massage (34.6%). Motivations are especially the reduction of side effect and stress, the positive effect of certain CAM-treatments on the immune system and tumor therapy. Results showed no difference between women and men. Most patients not having had any experience with CAM complain about the deficiency of information by their treating oncologist (31.4%) as well as missing treatment possibilities (54.3%). CONCLUSION: Since many patients believe in study results demonstrating the efficacy of CAM, it stresses our task to develop innovative study protocols to investigate the outcomes of certain CAM on symptom reduction or other endpoints. Thus, prospective trials and innovative evidence-based treatment concepts to include CAM into high-end oncology is what patients demand and what a modern oncology center should offer.