Phase III study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life cancer survivorship core questionnaire.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to develop a European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group (EORTC QLG) questionnaire that captures the full range of physical, mental, and social health-related quality of life (HRQOL) issues relevant to disease-free cancer survivors. In this phase III study, we pretested the provisional core questionnaire (QLQ-SURV111) and aimed to identify essential and optional scales. METHODS: We pretested the QLQ-SURV111 in 492 cancer survivors from 17 countries with one of 11 cancer diagnoses. We applied the EORTC QLG decision rules and employed factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) analysis to assess and, where necessary, modify the hypothesized questionnaire scales. We calculated correlations between the survivorship scales and the QLQ-C30 summary score and carried out a Delphi survey among healthcare professionals, patient representatives, and cancer researchers to distinguish between essential and optional scales. RESULTS: Fifty-four percent of the sample was male, mean age was 60 years, and, on average, time since completion of treatment was 3.8 years. Eleven items were excluded, resulting in the QLQ-SURV100, with 12 functional and 9 symptom scales, a symptom checklist, 4 single items, and 10 conditional items. The essential survivorship scales consist of 73 items. CONCLUSIONS: The QLQ-SURV100 has been developed to assess comprehensively the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors. It includes essential and optional scales and will be validated further in an international phase IV study. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The availability of this questionnaire will facilitate a standardized and robust assessment of the HRQOL of disease-free cancer survivors.

The prognostic impact of daytime and seasonality of radiotherapy on head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: The potential impact of daytime and season of radiotherapy application on prognosis is unclear. This was analyzed in a retrospective cohort of patients who were diagnosed with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) and treated with definitive radiotherapy with or without chemotherapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patient and tumor characteristics, treatment parameters and outcome until last follow-up or death were obtained. Median radiotherapy delivery daytime of each patient was categorized as morning (AM) and afternoon (PM). Treatment season was defined by median date of treatment course. Each year was divided into DARK and LIGHT according to equinoxes. Time-to-event endpoints were defined by first biopsy confirming the HNSCC. RESULTS: Six hundred fifty-five cases were identified who were treated with (chemo)radiotherapy between 2002 and 2015. Median follow-up was 47 months. No significant heterogeneity in patient, tumor and treatment characteristics were observed between DARK and LIGHT or regarding median daily fraction time (X2 p > 0.05). Five-year loco-regional control (73% vs. 61%; p = 0.0108) and progression-free survival (51% vs. 43%; p = 0.0374) were superior when radiotherapy was administered in DARK. Neither the daytime nor any other treatment time-related parameter affected prognosis. CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating and presenting the prognostic impact of seasonality regarding the treatment course on loco-regional control and progression-free survival (DARK > LIGHT). The biological mechanism of action is unclear. These results should be interpreted with caution and our findings have to be validated externally.

The impact of delivery daytime and seasonality of radiotherapy for head and neck cancer on toxicity burden.

AIM: The potential impact of the daytime and season of radiotherapy application on acute and late toxicity burden was analyzed on a cohort of curatively treated head and neck squamous cell carcinoma patients. METHODS: Through a retrospective chart review, patient and tumor characteristics, treatment parameters and outcome were obtained. Patients treated with definitive or adjuvant radiotherapy with and without chemotherapy receiving ≥60 Gy between 2002 and 2015 were included (n = 617). Daily fraction times and dates were extracted. Median radiotherapy delivery time of each patient was categorized as morning (AM) and afternoon (PM). Treatment season was defined by the median day of the treatment course. Each year was divided into DARK and LIGHT by the March and September equinoxes. Acute (T) and late (A) toxicity were defined by TAME methodology. RESULTS: Median follow-up was 51 months. Mean T and A scores during and after radiotherapy in DARK vs. LIGHT were 1.98 vs. 1.61 (p = 0.0127) and 0.41 vs. 0.30 (p = 0.1699), respectively. Mean T and A scores during and after AM vs. PM radiotherapy were 1.71 vs. 1.88 (p = 0.0387) and 0.31 vs. 0.41 (p = 0.2638), respectively. Multivariate analyses indicated DARK vs. LIGHT as the only independent treatment time-related factor among other factors such as tumor subsite, UICC stage, radiotherapy technique, and chemotherapy for T. CONCLUSION: This is the first study investigating the impact of seasonality on toxicity burden, showing higher acute toxicity with radiotherapy in DARK. The daytime did not predict the toxicity. The hypothesis-generating findings of this retrospective study should be further investigated.

Clinical oncology module for the ESTRO core curriculum.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical oncologists are physicians with the competencies to manage cancer patients through the entire disease pathway combining the competencies of radiation and medical oncologists. The 4th edition of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Core Curriculum for Radiation Oncology/Radiotherapy (ESTRO curriculum) has received wide support by the clinical oncology community. The aim was to develop a clinical oncology module that could be combined with the ESTRO curriculum to enable clinical oncology trainees to follow a single curriculum. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A range of stakeholders including National Society representatives, an oncologist from a low- middle-income country, and a recently appointed specialist, developed and commented on iterations of the curriculum. Further modifications were made by the ESTRO Education Council. RESULTS: The module is based on the CanMEDS 2015 framework and identifies 20 enabling competencies in the Medical Expert role that are required in addition to the ESTRO curriculum for the training of clinical oncologists. Recommendations are made for the levels of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) to be attained by the end of training. CONCLUSIONS: The Clinical Oncology module, when combined with the ESTRO curriculum, covers the entire cancer pathway rather than being modality specific. It is hoped it will aid in the development of comparable standards of training in clinical oncology across Europe and may also have utility in low- and middle-income countries as well as providing a single curriculum for trainees.

Recommended ESTRO Core Curriculum for Radiation Oncology/Radiotherapy 4th edition.

INTRODUCTION: In 2017 it was decided to revise the European Core Curriculum for Radiation Oncology/Radiotherapy to produce a 4th edition. The aims of the ESTRO curriculum are to develop comparable standards for training across Europe and to facilitate free movement of specialists across borders. It is also hoped that it will improve the level of training across Europe and will make the non-medical expert roles more explicit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A wide range of stakeholders including National Society representatives, trainees, recently appointed specialists, members of the European Union Medical Specialists Radiotherapy section, an RTT, a radiobiologist, a physicist and lay members from ESTRO staff developed and commented on iterations of the curriculum. RESULTS: The 4th edition is based on the CanMEDS 2015 framework and identifies 14 Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) and the competencies required to perform these. The manager role is replaced by competencies related to leadership. The levels of proficiency required for tumour sites is defined as levels of EPAs. CONCLUSIONS: It is hoped that the inclusive method of developing the 4th edition has resulted in a document that will have utility in the wide range of environments in which radiation oncology is practised in Europe.