Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning. METHODS: Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved. RESULTS: Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way. CONCLUSION: We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service. RESULTS: 100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Experience With the Routine Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Patients With Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: The Christie NHS Foundation Trust launched their electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) service in January 2019 in the routine clinical setting. The lung cancer questionnaires consist of 14 symptom items, adapted from the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (version 5.0) and the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L quality-of-life (QoL) tool. Patients with lung cancer are invited to complete questionnaires assessing their symptoms and QoL using an online platform. METHODS: The ePROM responses and clinical, pathologic, and treatment data for patients who completed the questionnaires between January 2019 and December 2020 were extracted from electronic medical records. The symptom and QoL scores of patients who completed baseline pretreatment ePROMs and also those who completed ePROMs pre- and postpalliative lung systemic anticancer therapy (SACT) or radical thoracic radiotherapy were evaluated. Pretreatment questionnaires were analyzed according to age, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS), and Adult Comorbidity Evaluation-27 (ACE-27) comorbidity score. RESULTS: One thousand four hundred eighty patients with lung cancer were included. There were no statistically significant differences in symptoms and QoL scores between age groups. Cough (P = .006) and EQ-5D-5L mobility scores (P = .006) were significantly worse for patients with an ECOG PS of 0-1. Dyspnea (P = .035), hemoptysis (P = .023), nausea (P = .041), mobility (P = .004), and self-care (P = .0420) were significantly worse for those with higher ACE-27 scores (2-3 v 0-1). Palliative SACT was associated with a significant improvement in cough (P < .001) and hemoptysis (P = .025), but significantly negatively affected mobility (P = .013). Patients receiving radical thoracic radiotherapy reported a significant improvement in hemoptysis (P = .042) but worse pain (P = .002) and fatigue (P = .01). Other changes in symptom and QoL scores were not significant. CONCLUSION: The symptoms and QoL reported at baseline and before and after both palliative SACT and radical thoracic radiotherapy are clinically relevant and meaningful. We have demonstrated that routine implementation of ePROMs into clinical practice is feasible and can inform clinical practice and future research.

Impact of Introducing Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy on Curative Intent Radiotherapy and Survival for Lung Cancer.

Background: Lung cancer survival remains poor. The introduction of Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy (IMRT) allows treatment of more complex tumours as it improves conformity around the tumour and greater normal tissue sparing. However, there is limited evidence assessing the clinical impact of IMRT. In this study, we evaluated whether the introduction of IMRT had an influence on the proportion of patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy over time, and whether this had an effect on patient survival. Materials and Methods: Patients treated with thoracic radiotherapy at our institute between 2005 and 2020 were retrospectively identified and grouped into three time periods: A) 2005-2008 (pre-IMRT), B) 2009-2012 (selective use of IMRT), and C) 2013-2020 (full access to IMRT). Data on performance status (PS), stage, age, gross tumour volume (GTV), planning target volume (PTV) and survival were collected. The proportion of patients treated with a curative dose between these periods was compared. Multivariable survival models were fitted to evaluate the hazard for patients treated in each time period, adjusting for PS, stage, age and tumour volume. Results: 12,499 patients were included in the analysis (n=2675 (A), n=3127 (B), and n=6697 (C)). The proportion of patients treated with curative-intent radiotherapy increased between the 3 time periods, from 38.1% to 50.2% to 65.6% (p<0.001). When stage IV patients were excluded, this increased to 40.1% to 58.1% to 82.9% (p<0.001). This trend was seen across all PS and stages. The GTV size increased across the time periods and PTV size decreased. Patients treated with curative-intent during period C had a survival improvement compared to time period A when adjusting for clinical variables (HR=0.725 (0.632-0.831), p<0.001). Conclusion: IMRT was associated with to more patients receiving curative-intent radiotherapy. In addition, it facilitated the treatment of larger tumours that historically would have been treated palliatively. Despite treating larger, more complex tumours with curative-intent, a survival benefit was seen for patients treated when full access to IMRT was available (2013-2020). This study highlights the impact of IMRT on thoracic oncology practice, accepting that improved survival may also be attributed to a number of other contributing factors, including improvements in staging, other technological radiotherapy advances and changes to systemic treatment.

Outcomes of curative-intent radiotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and interstitial lung disease (ILD).

Outcomes of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD n = 587) and interstitial lung disease (ILD n = 34) treated with curative-intent radiotherapy were retrospectively investigated. Presence of ILD but not decreased forced expiratory volume in 1-second correlated with poor overall survival. Increased breathlessness and oxygen requirements after radiotherapy were observed in severe/very severe COPD and ILD.

Isotoxic Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy in Stage III Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Feasibility Study.

PURPOSE: Not all patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are suitable for concurrent chemoradiation therapy (CRT). Local failure rate is high for sequential concurrent CRT. As such, there is a rationale for treatment intensification. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Isotoxic intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) is a multicenter feasibility study that combines different intensification strategies including hyperfractionation, acceleration, and dose escalation facilitated by IMRT. Patients with unresectable stage III NSCLC, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status (PS) of 0 to 2, and unsuitable for concurrent CRT were recruited. A minimum of 2 cycles of platinum-based chemotherapy was compulsory before starting radiation therapy (RT). Radiation dose was increased until a maximum dose of 79.2 Gy was reached or 1 or more of the organs at risk met predefined constraints. RT was delivered in 1.8-Gy fractions twice daily, and an RT quality assurance program was implemented. The primary objective was the delivery of isotoxic IMRT to a dose >60 Gy equivalent dose in 2-Gy fractions (EQD2 assuming an α/ß ratio of 10 Gy for acute reacting tissues). RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients were recruited from 7 UK centers. Median age was 69.9 years (range, 46-86 years). The male-to-female ratio was 17:18. ECOG PS was 0 to 5 in 14.2% of patients; PS was 1 to 27 in 77.1% of patients; PS was 2 to 3 in 8.6% of patients. Stage IIIA:IIIB ratio was 22:13 (62.9%:37.1%). Of 37 patients, 2 (5.4%) failed to achieve EQD2 > 60 Gy. Median prescribed tumor dose was 77.4 Gy (range, 61.2-79.2 Gy). A maximum dose of 79.2Gy was achieved in 14 patients (37.8%). Grade 3 esophagitis was reported in 2 patients, and no patients developed grade 3 to 4 pneumonitis. There were 3 grade 5 events: acute radiation pneumonitis, bronchopulmonary hemorrhage, and acute lung infection. Median follow-up at time of analysis was 25.4 months (range, 8.0-44.2) months for 11 of 35 survivors. The median survival was 18.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 13.9-30.6), 2-year overall survival was 33.6% (95% CI, 17.9-50.1), and progression-free survival was 23.9% (95% CI, 11.3-39.1). CONCLUSIONS: Isotoxic IMRT is a well-tolerated and feasible approach to treatment intensification.

The care of older cancer patients in the United Kingdom.

The ageing population poses new challenges globally. Cancer care for older patients is one of these challenges, and it has a significant impact on societies. In the United Kingdom (UK), as the number of older cancer patients increases, the management of this group has become part of daily practice for most oncology teams in every geographical area. Older cancer patients are at a higher risk of both under- and over-treatment. Therefore, the assessment of a patient's biological age and effective organ functional reserve becomes paramount. This may then guide treatment decisions by better estimating a prognosis and the risk-to-benefit ratio of a given therapy to anticipate and mitigate against potential toxicities/difficulties. Moreover, older cancer patients are often affected by geriatric syndromes and other issues that impact their overall health, function and quality of life. Comprehensive geriatric assessments offer an opportunity to identify and address health problems which may then optimise one's fitness and well-being. Whilst it is widely accepted that older cancer patients may benefit from such an approach, resources are often scarce, and access to dedicated services and research remains limited to specific centres across the UK. The aim of this project is to map the current services and projects in the UK to learn from each other and shape the future direction of care of older patients with cancer.

Prophylactic Irradiation of Tracts in Patients With Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma: An Open-Label, Multicenter, Phase III Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: Prophylactic irradiation to the chest wall after diagnostic or therapeutic procedures in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) has been a widespread practice across Europe, although the efficacy of this treatment is uncertain. In this study, we aimed to determine the efficacy of prophylactic radiotherapy in reducing the incidence of chest wall metastases (CWM) after a procedure in MPM. METHODS: After undergoing a chest wall procedure, patients with MPM were randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (within 42 days of the procedure) or no radiotherapy. Open thoracotomies, needle biopsies, and indwelling pleural catheters were excluded. Prophylactic radiotherapy was delivered at a dose of 21 Gy in three fractions over three consecutive working days, using a single electron field adapted to maximize coverage of the tract from skin surface to pleura. The primary outcome was the incidence of CWM within 6 months from random assignment, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Stratification factors included epithelioid histology and intention to give chemotherapy. RESULTS: Between July 30, 2012, and December 12, 2015, 375 patients were recruited from 54 centers and randomly assigned to receive prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 186) or no prophylactic radiotherapy (n = 189). Participants were well matched at baseline. No significant difference was seen in the incidence of CWM at 6 months between the prophylactic radiotherapy and no radiotherapy groups (no. [%]: 6 [3.2] v 10 [5.3], respectively; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.17 to 1.86; P = .44). Skin toxicity was the most common radiotherapy-related adverse event in the prophylactic radiotherapy group, with 96 patients (51.6%) receiving grade 1; 19 (10.2%), grade 2; and 1 (0.5%) grade 3 radiation dermatitis (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 4.0). CONCLUSION: There is no role for the routine use of prophylactic irradiation to chest wall procedure sites in patients with MPM.

Is heterogeneity in stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer obscuring the potential benefits of dose-escalated concurrent chemo-radiotherapy in clinical trials?

The current standard of care for the management of inoperable stage 3 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is concurrent chemoradiotherapy (cCRT) using radiotherapy dose-fractionation and chemotherapy regimens that were established 3 decades ago. In an attempt to improve the chances of long-term control from cCRT, dose-escalation of the radiotherapy dose was assessed in the RTOG 0617 randomised control study comparing the standard 60 Gy in 30 fractions with a high-dose arm receiving 74 Gy in 37 fractions. Following the publication of this trial the thoracic oncology community were surprised to learn that there was worse survival in the dose-escalated arm and that for now the standard of care must remain with the lower dose. In this article we review the RTOG 0617 paper with subsequent analyses and studies to explore why the use of dose-escalated cCRT in stage 3 NSCLC has not shown the benefits that were expected. The overarching theme of this opinion piece is how heterogeneity between stage 3 NSCLC cases in terms of patient, tumour, and clinical factors may obscure the potential benefits of dose-escalation by causing imbalances in the arms of studies such as RTOG 0617. We also examine recent advances in the staging, management, and technological delivery of radiotherapy in NSCLC and how these may be employed to optimise cCRT trials in the future and ensure that any potential benefits of dose-escalation can be detected.

The use of volunteers to implement electronic patient reported outcomes in lung cancer outpatient clinics.

BACKGROUND: Treatment related toxicity is common after chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Our group has developed and validated an electronic Patient Reported Outcome questionnaire (ePRO) to assess symptoms and toxicity in lung cancer patients receiving (chemo)radiotherapy treatment. We assessed the need for volunteer support in clinics to assist patients in completing ePROs. METHODS: Lung Cancer patients attending outpatient or radiotherapy clinics at The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester were consented and asked to complete a Patient Reported Outcomes questionnaire using an electronic device (a touchscreen). Trained volunteers were available if patients required help such as verbal or physical assistance. The primary objective was to determine the need for volunteers to assist lung cancer patients in completing ePROs. RESULTS: 27/86 (31.4%) of patients who consented to this study required assistance to complete the ePRO. After questioning, we found that only 7/86 (8.1%) would have relied on volunteers for assistance as the majority of patients had a companion that could have provided help. 81/86 (94.2%) of patients were satisfied with the use of a touchscreen tablet to complete the ePRO. CONCLUSION: Our results demonstrate that the introduction of ePROs in lung cancer outpatient clinics is feasible, even without the use of volunteers for the majority of patients. The implementation of ePROs would allow large volumes of high quality (chemo)radiotherapy toxicity data to be collected accurately and quickly. This is essential for the development of predictive models of outcome using population-based data, which could allow the personalisation of (chemo)radiotherapy treatment for lung cancer patients.

Dexamethasone and supportive care with or without whole brain radiotherapy in treating patients with non-small cell lung cancer with brain metastases unsuitable for resection or stereotactic radiotherapy (QUARTZ): results from a phase 3, non-inferiority, randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Whole brain radiotherapy (WBRT) and dexamethasone are widely used to treat brain metastases from non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), although there have been no randomised clinical trials showing that WBRT improves either quality of life or overall survival. Even after treatment with WBRT, the prognosis of this patient group is poor. We aimed to establish whether WBRT could be omitted without a significant effect on survival or quality of life. METHODS: The Quality of Life after Treatment for Brain Metastases (QUARTZ) study is a non-inferiority, phase 3 randomised trial done at 69 UK and three Australian centres. NSCLC patients with brain metastases unsuitable for surgical resection or stereotactic radiotherapy were randomly assigned (1:1) to optimal supportive care (OSC) including dexamethasone plus WBRT (20 Gy in five daily fractions) or OSC alone (including dexamethasone). The dose of dexamethasone was determined by the patients' symptoms and titrated downwards if symptoms improved. Allocation to treatment group was done by a phone call from the hospital to the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London using a minimisation programme with a random element and stratification by centre, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), gender, status of brain metastases, and the status of primary lung cancer. The primary outcome measure was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). QALYs were generated from overall survival and patients' weekly completion of the EQ-5D questionnaire. Treatment with OSC alone was considered non-inferior if it was no more than 7 QALY days worse than treatment with WBRT plus OSC, which required 534 patients (80% power, 5% [one-sided] significance level). Analysis was done by intention to treat for all randomly assigned patients. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN3826061. FINDINGS: Between March 2, 2007, and Aug 29, 2014, 538 patients were recruited from 69 UK and three Australian centres, and were randomly assigned to receive either OSC plus WBRT (269) or OSC alone (269). Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups, and the median age of participants was 66 years (range 38-85). Significantly more episodes of drowsiness, hair loss, nausea, and dry or itchy scalp were reported while patients were receiving WBRT, although there was no evidence of a difference in the rate of serious adverse events between the two groups. There was no evidence of a difference in overall survival (hazard ratio 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·26), overall quality of life, or dexamethasone use between the two groups. The difference between the mean QALYs was 4·7 days (46·4 QALY days for the OSC plus WBRT group vs 41·7 QALY days for the OSC group), with two-sided 90% CI of -12·7 to 3·3. INTERPRETATION: Although the primary outcome measure result includes the prespecified non-inferiority margin, the combination of the small difference in QALYs and the absence of a difference in survival and quality of life between the two groups suggests that WBRT provides little additional clinically significant benefit for this patient group. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit at University College London, and the National Health and Medical Research Council in Australia.

Protocol for the isotoxic intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a feasibility study.

INTRODUCTION: The majority of stage III patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) are unsuitable for concurrent chemoradiotherapy, the non-surgical gold standard of care. As the alternative treatment options of sequential chemoradiotherapy and radiotherapy alone are associated with high local failure rates, various intensification strategies have been employed. There is evidence to suggest that altered fractionation using hyperfractionation, acceleration, dose escalation, and individualisation may be of benefit. The MAASTRO group have pioneered the concept of 'isotoxic' radiotherapy allowing for individualised dose escalation using hyperfractionated accelerated radiotherapy based on predefined normal tissue constraints. This study aims to evaluate whether delivering isotoxic radiotherapy using intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) is achievable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Isotoxic IMRT is a multicentre feasibility study. From June 2014, a total of 35 patients from 7 UK centres, with a proven histological or cytological diagnosis of inoperable NSCLC, unsuitable for concurrent chemoradiotherapy will be recruited. A minimum of 2 cycles of induction chemotherapy is mandated before starting isotoxic radiotherapy. The dose of radiation will be increased until one or more of the organs at risk tolerance or the maximum dose of 79.2 Gy is reached. The primary end point is feasibility, with accrual rates, local control and overall survival our secondary end points. Patients will be followed up for 5 years. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval (REC reference: 13/NW/0480) from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee North West-Greater Manchester South. The trial is conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice (GCP). The trial results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01836692; Pre-results.

Investigation of a Patient Reported Outcome tool to assess radiotherapy-related toxicity prospectively in patients with lung cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a paucity of data regarding the feasibility and relevance of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) tools to assess radiotherapy-related toxicity in lung cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: From January to June 2013, lung cancer patients undergoing thoracic radiotherapy/chemo-radiotherapy completed nine patient-adapted Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE), the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy and at follow-up. Clinicians completed the same CTCAE items and agreement between patients' and clinicians' reporting was assessed using weighted kappa coefficients. QoL and HADS scores were correlated with the patients' and clinicians' reported toxicity. RESULTS: 70/116 patients completed the questionnaires for at least one time point excluding baseline. Agreement between patients' and clinicians' reported toxicity ranged from slight to substantial. Most discrepancies were within one grade and patients reported greater severity than clinicians for most symptoms. QoL and HADS scores were more strongly correlated with the patients' compared to clinicians' matching toxicity reports. The PRO tool was found to be statistically reliable. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a PRO tool in lung cancer radiotherapy is feasible, reliable and acceptable to patients. PROs should be integrated in future clinical trials evaluating new radiotherapy approaches to assess toxicity.

How can we optimise concurrent chemoradiotherapy for inoperable stage III non-small cell lung cancer?

Latest evidence sets a clear mandate for concurrent chemoradiotherapy as the current standard of care for inoperable stage III non small cell lung cancer patients with good performance status and minimal co-morbidities. However, a survival plateau has been reached, with disappointing results from dose escalation studies using conventional fractionation and studies investigating the addition of systemic doses of chemotherapy delivered before or after concurrent chemoradiotherapy. A review was carried out to address three questions considered fundamental to improving outcome in patients with stage III non-small cell lung cancer: (1) Can radiotherapy regimens be optimised using advanced radiotherapy techniques to improve local control rate and overall survival? (2) Can systemic therapy regimens be optimised to reduce the risk of distant metastases? (3) Should concurrent chemoradiotherapy be considered standard of care for locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer in the elderly? It is clear that further improvement in outcome for these patients will be determined by better local control and by reducing the risk of distant recurrence. Given the technological advances in radiotherapy planning and delivery in recent years plus the abundance of novel targeted therapies exploiting critical oncogenic pathways, further advances in combined drug-radiation treatment for lung cancer seem highly possible.

New radiotherapy approaches in locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Radiotherapy plays a major role in the treatment of patients with locally advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), particularly since most patients are not suitable for surgery due to the extent of their disease, advanced age and multiple co-morbidities. Despite advances in local and systemic therapies local control and survival remain poor and there is a sense that a therapeutic plateau has been reached with conventional approaches. Strategies for the intensification of radiotherapy such as dose escalation have shown encouraging results in phase I-II trials, but the outcome of the phase III Radiation Therapy Oncology Group 0617 trial was surprisingly disappointing. Hyperfractionated and/or accelerated fractionating schedules have demonstrated superior survival compared to conventional fractionation at the expense of greater oesophageal toxicity. Modern radiotherapy techniques such as the integration of 4-dimensional computed tomography for planning, intensity modulated radiotherapy and image-guided radiotherapy have substantially enhanced the accuracy of the radiotherapy delivery through improved target conformality and incorporation of tumour respiratory motion. A number of studies are evaluating personalised radiation treatment including the concept of isotoxic radiotherapy and the boosting of the primary tumour based on functional imaging. Proton beam therapy is currently under investigation in locally advanced NSCLC. These approaches, either alone or in combination could potentially allow for further dose escalation and improvement of the therapeutic ratio and survival for patients with NSCLC.

Radiotherapy for lung cancer in the elderly.

Mortality from lung cancer is increasing in patients > or = 70 years. Radiotherapy has an important role in the treatment of lung cancer for this group. Despite this, there have been few elderly specific trials of radiotherapy in lung cancer and current treatment is often based on evidence extrapolated from studies treating younger patients. This review of the literature examines the impact of radiotherapy for the radical and palliative treatment of non-small-cell and small-cell lung cancer, on survival, treatment-related toxicity and quality of life in the elderly. We also comment on the need for validated, practical geriatric screening and assessment tools to help predict toxicity to treatment.

Prophylactic radiotherapy to intervention sites in mesothelioma: a systematic review and survey of UK practice.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), who undergo chest instrumentation, may develop seeding at the site of intervention, leading to subcutaneous tumour. This is believed to be reduced by the common practice of prophylactic irradiation to intervention tracts (PIT). However, evidence to support PIT is currently inadequate and contentious. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We carried out a systematic search of published literature for articles relating to the incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases and the use of PIT in mesothelioma. In addition, a survey of current practice was conducted in 54 UK oncology centres. RESULTS: Fourteen studies revealed an incidence of chest wall intervention tract metastases of 0-48% with a trend toward a higher rate of metastases for more invasive procedures. Three randomised controlled trials (RCTs), two prospective non-randomised studies and five retrospective series met the eligibility criteria to evaluate the role of PIT in MPM. Of the three RCTs, two did not support the use of PIT. None of the RCTs included patients who had received systemic chemotherapy. Of the oncology centres responding to the survey, 75% practiced PIT, and 80% would be interested in a trial to determine the efficacy of PIT. CONCLUSIONS: No consensus has been reached to support the use of PIT. However, most centres in the UK still offer PIT. There was widespread interest in a randomised controlled trial to establish PIT efficacy in the era of effective systemic chemotherapy for malignant pleural mesothelioma.

Management of unresectable stage III non-small-cell lung cancer with combined-modality therapy: a review of the current literature and recommendations for treatment.

Lung cancer remains the most common cause of cancer deaths in the United Kingdom, and long-term survival from lung cancer has hardly improved over the past 30 years. The benefit of combined-modality therapy with chemotherapy and radiation therapy in improving survival for patients with inoperable non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) was discovered over 10 years ago. In this comprehensive literature review, we discuss the current status of combined-modality therapy for unresectable stage III NSCLC. The efficacy and toxicity of different chemoradiation therapy regimens are presented. The potential role of novel and targeted therapies and radiation dose escalation is also considered. Finally, recommendations are made for the treatment of unresectable stage III NSCLC.