Local Control Following Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Liver Oligometastases: Lessons from a Quarter Century.

The utilization of stereotactic body radiation therapy for the treatment of liver metastasis has been widely studied and has demonstrated favorable local control outcomes. However, several predictive factors play a crucial role in the efficacy of stereotactic body radiation therapy, such as the number and size (volume) of metastatic liver lesions, the primary tumor site (histology), molecular biomarkers (e.g., KRAS and TP53 mutation), the use of systemic therapy prior to SBRT, the radiation dose, and the use of advanced technology and organ motion management during SBRT. These prognostic factors need to be considered when clinical trials are designed to evaluate the efficacy of SBRT for liver metastases.

Conformal 3D computed tomography planned endoluminal brachytherapy for the local control of esophageal cancer.

PURPOSE: To outline the toxicity, tolerability, and efficacy of a 3D conformal computed tomography planned endoluminal brachytherapy (ELBT) treatment for esophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). METHODS AND MATERIALS: A retrospective single-center analysis of toxicity, tolerability, and outcomes for 65 consecutive patients with OAC/OSCC who received 6-8Gy in one fraction or 12-16Gy in two fractions of high-dose-rate ELBT as salvage postchemoradiotherapy (n = 7 and n = 14 respectively), or as a boost to external beam radiotherapy (n = 14 and n = 30, respectively). RESULTS: Median overall survival from the first brachytherapy application was 7.4 (IQR 5.0-14.7) months for the boost cohort and 9.2 (IQR 5.8-20.1) months for the salvage cohort. In a univariate analysis, use of a higher, fractionated dose of radiotherapy was associated with longer overall survival. At least one-third (33%; n = 7) of the salvage cohort and 28% (n = 12) of the boost cohort exhibited a local recurrence prior to death. Overall, 66.7% of the salvage and 56.8% of the boost cohort experienced odynophagia. Swallow function stabilized or improved early after treatment, with only 11.6% of the boost and 14.3% of the salvage cohort demonstrating a long-term decline in dysphagia score. CONCLUSIONS: 3D conformal planned ELBT is safe and tolerable. Most patients exhibit an early and sustained stabilization or improvement in their swallow function and greater survival is seen with higher brachytherapy doses. Further research is required to determine the place of brachytherapy in the management of esophageal cancer, particularly when planned using contemporary conformal approaches.

Normo- or Hypo-Fractionated Photon or Proton Radiotherapy in the Management of Locally Advanced Unresectable Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review.

LAPC is associated with a poor prognosis and requires a multimodal treatment approach. However, the role of radiation therapy in LAPC treatment remains controversial. This systematic review aimed to explore the role of proton and photon therapy, with varying radiation techniques and fractionation, in treatment outcomes and their respective toxicity profiles. METHODS: Clinical studies published from 2012 to 2022 were systematically reviewed using PubMed, MEDLINE (via PubMed) and Cochrane databases. Different radiotherapy-related data were extracted and analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 31 studies matched the inclusion criteria. Acute toxicity was less remarkable in stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CFRT), while in proton beam therapy (PBT) grade 3 or higher acute toxicity was observed more commonly with doses of 67.5 Gy (RBE) or higher. Late toxicity was not reported in most studies; therefore, comparison between groups was not possible. The range of median overall survival (OS) for the CFRT and SBRT groups was 9.3-22.9 months and 8.5-20 months, respectively. For the PBT group, the range of median OS was 18.4-22.3 months. CONCLUSION: CFRT and SBRT showed comparable survival outcomes with a more favorable acute toxicity profile for SBRT. PBT is a promising new treatment modality; however, additional clinical studies are needed to support its efficacy and safety.

Efficacy of early PET-CT directed switch to carboplatin and paclitaxel based definitive chemoradiotherapy in patients with oesophageal cancer who have a poor early response to induction cisplatin and capecitabine in the UK: a multi-centre randomised controlled phase II trial.

Background: The utility of early metabolic response assessment to guide selection of the systemic component of definitive chemoradiotherapy (dCRT) for oesophageal cancer is uncertain. Methods: In this multi-centre, randomised, open-label, phase II substudy of the radiotherapy dose-escalation SCOPE2 trial we evaluated the role of 18F-Fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (PET) at day 14 of cycle 1 of three-weekly induction cis/cap (cisplatin (60 mg/m2)/capecitabine (625 mg/m2 days 1-21)) in patients with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC). Non-responders, who had a less than 35% reduction in maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) from pre-treatment baseline, were randomly assigned to continue cis/cap or switch to car/pac (carboplatin AUC 5/paclitaxel 175 mg/m2) for a further induction cycle, then concurrently with radiotherapy over 25 fractions. Responders continued cis/cap for the duration of treatment. All patients (including responders) were randomised to standard (50Gy) or high (60Gy) dose radiation as part of the main study. Primary endpoint for the substudy was treatment failure-free survival (TFFS) at week 24. The trial was registered with International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number 97125464 and ClinicalTrials.govNCT02741856. Findings: This substudy was closed on 1st August 2021 by the Independent Data Monitoring Committee on the grounds of futility and possible harm. To this point from 22nd November 2016, 103 patients from 16 UK centres had participated in the PET-CT substudy; 63 (61.2%; 52/83 OSCC, 11/20 OAC) of whom were non-responders. Of these, 31 were randomised to car/pac and 32 to remain on cis/cap. All patients were followed up until at least 24 weeks, at which point in OSCC both TFFS (25/27 (92.6%) vs 17/25 (68%); p = 0.028) and overall survival (42.5 vs. 20.4 months, adjusted HR 0.36; p = 0.018) favoured cis/cap over car/pac. There was a trend towards worse survival in OSCC + OAC cis/cap responders (33.6 months; 95%CI 23.1-nr) vs. non-responders (42.5 (95%CI 27.0-nr) months; HR = 1.43; 95%CI 0.67-3.08; p = 0.35). Interpretation: In OSCC, early metabolic response assessment is not prognostic for TFFS or overall survival and should not be used to personalise systemic therapy in patients receiving dCRT. Funding: Cancer Research UK.

Low muscle mass measured at T12 is a prognostic biomarker in unresectable oesophageal cancers receiving chemoradiotherapy.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Low muscle mass is an imaging biomarker of patient frailty that has been associated with increased toxicity and decreased survival in a number of cancers. Patients with unresectable oesophageal cancer receive chemoradiotherapy as standard of care. Muscle mass is not yet an established prognostic marker in this population. Muscle mass is usually assessed by segmenting skeletal muscle at the L3 vertebral level. But radiotherapy planning scans for oesophageal cancers do not always image this level, which has limited previous studies of body composition. Skeletal muscle is known to regulate immune function, but the association of muscle mass with lymphopenia in cancer patients has not been shown. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyse 135 oesophageal cancer patients who received chemoradiotherapy and investigate the prognostic value of skeletal muscle area assessed at T12. We also examine the association between muscle mass and radiation-induced lymphopenia. RESULTS: We find that low muscle mass is associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.72 [0.53-0.97]). However, this effect interacts with body mass index (BMI) such that the prognostic value of low muscle mass is removed by high BMI. In our study, patients with low muscle mass were more prone to radiation-induced lymphopenia (75% vs. 50% in patients with high muscle mass). A significant decrease in circulating lymphocytes was associated with poorer overall survival (hazard ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.68 [0.47-0.99]). CONCLUSION: Our study shows that assessing muscle mass at T12 is feasible and provides prognostic information. Low muscle mass at T12 is associated with poorer overall survival and increased risk of radiation-induced lymphopenia. Muscle mass provides additional information over performance status and BMI. Low BMI patients are most affected by low muscle mass, highlighting the importance of close nutritional support in this population.

Time to level up treatment for less survivable cancers.

Dramatic regional variations in outcomes for patients with less survivable cancer (lung, pancreatic, brain, oesophageal and gastric) have been highlighted in a report published by MSD. This editorial examines this report and considers the implications for UK cancer strategy.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon pancreatic cancer treatment (CONTACT Study): a UK national observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: CONTACT is a national multidisciplinary study assessing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic upon diagnostic and treatment pathways among patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). METHODS: The treatment of consecutive patients with newly diagnosed PDAC from a pre-COVID-19 pandemic cohort (07/01/2019-03/03/2019) were compared to a cohort diagnosed during the first wave of the UK pandemic ('COVID' cohort, 16/03/2020-10/05/2020), with 12-month follow-up. RESULTS: Among 984 patients (pre-COVID: n = 483, COVID: n = 501), the COVID cohort was less likely to receive staging investigations other than CT scanning (29.5% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.010). Among patients treated with curative intent, there was a reduction in the proportion of patients recommended surgery (54.5% vs. 76.6%, p = 0.001) and increase in the proportion recommended upfront chemotherapy (45.5% vs. 23.4%, p = 0.002). Among patients on a non-curative pathway, fewer patients were recommended (47.4% vs. 57.3%, p = 0.004) or received palliative anti-cancer therapy (20.5% vs. 26.5%, p = 0.045). Ultimately, fewer patients in the COVID cohort underwent surgical resection (6.4% vs. 9.3%, p = 0.036), whilst more patients received no anti-cancer treatment (69.3% vs. 59.2% p = 0.009). Despite these differences, there was no difference in median overall survival between the COVID and pre-COVID cohorts, (3.5 (IQR 2.8-4.1) vs. 4.4 (IQR 3.6-5.2) months, p = 0.093). CONCLUSION: Pathways for patients with PDAC were significantly disrupted during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, with fewer patients receiving standard treatments. However, no significant impact on survival was discerned.

Use of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (Cytosponge™) for post chemoradiotherapy surveillance in patients with oesophageal cancer in the UK (CYTOFLOC): A multicentre feasibility study.

Background: Effective surveillance strategies are required for patients diagnosed with oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) or adenocarcinoma (OAC) for whom chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is used as a potentially-curative, organ-sparing, alternative to surgery. In this study, we evaluated the safety, acceptability and tolerability of a non-endoscopic immunocytological device (the Cytosponge™) to assess treatment response following CRT. Methods: This multicentre, single-arm feasibility trial took place in 10 tertiary cancer centres in the UK. Patients aged at least 16 years diagnosed with OSCC or OAC, and who were within 4-16 weeks of completing definitive or neo-adjuvant CRT, were included. Participants were required to have a Mellow-Pinkas dysphagia score of 0-2 and be able to swallow tablets. All patients underwent a single Cytosponge™ assessment in addition to standard of care (which included post-treatment endoscopic evaluation with biopsy for patients undergoing definitive CRT; surgery for those who received neo-adjuvant CRT). The primary outcome was the proportion of consented, evaluable patients who successfully underwent Cytosponge™ assessment. Secondary and tertiary outcomes included safety, study consent rate, acceptance rate, the suitability of obtained samples for biomarker analysis, and the comparative efficacy of Cytosponge™ to standard histology (endoscopy and biopsy or post-resection specimen) in assessing for residual disease. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03529669. Findings: Between 18th April 2018 and 16th January 2020, 41 (42.7%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 32.7-53.2) of 96 potentially eligible patients consented to participate. Thirty-nine (95.1%, 95% CI 83.5-99.4) successfully carried out the Cytosponge™ procedure. Of these, 37 (95%) would be prepared to repeat the procedure. There were only two grade 1 adverse events attributed to use of the Cytosponge™. Thirty-five (90%) of the completed Cytosponge™ samples were suitable for biomarker analysis; 29 (83%) of these were concordant with endoscopic biopsies, three (9%) had findings suggestive of residual cancer on Cytosponge™ not found on endoscopic biopsies, and three (9%) had residual cancer on endoscopic biopsies not detected by Cytosponge™. Interpretation: Use of the CytospongeTM is safe, tolerable, and acceptable for the assessment of treatment response following CRT in OAC and OSCC. Further evaluation of Cytosponge™ in this setting is warranted. Funding: Cancer Research UK, National Institute for Health Research, Medical Research Council.

Challenges facing cancer care and guidance on prioritising its safe delivery: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the NHS to make rapid adjustments to practice to ensure that patients could continue to access vital treatments while reducing the risk of infection. A roundtable discussion was convened, including professionals from cancer care delivery and those working in patient involvement, to discuss experiences during the pandemic and to offer recommendations for the safe transition and implementation of cancer care in the community setting.

Radiotherapy respiratory motion management in hepatobiliary and pancreatic malignancies: a systematic review of patient factors influencing effectiveness of motion reduction with abdominal compression.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of abdominal compression for motion management in hepatobiliary-pancreatic (HPB) radiotherapy has not been systematically evaluated. METHODS & MATERIALS: A systematic review was carried out using PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases up to 1 July 2021. No date restrictions were applied. Additional searches were carried out using the University of Manchester digital library, Google Scholar and of retrieved papers' reference lists. Studies conducted evaluating respiratory motion utilising imaging with and without abdominal compression in the same patients available in English were included. Studies conducted in healthy volunteers or majority non-HPB sites, not providing descriptive motion statistics or patient characteristics before and after compression in the same patients or published without peer-review were excluded. A narrative synthesis was employed by tabulating retrieved studies and organising chronologically by abdominal compression device type to help identify patterns in the evidence. RESULTS: The inclusion criteria were met by 6 studies with a total of 152 patients. Designs were a mix of retrospective and prospective quantitative designs with chronological, non-randomised recruitment. Abdominal compression reduced craniocaudal respiratory motion in the majority of patients, although in four studies there were increases seen in at least one direction. The influence of patient comorbidities on effectiveness of compression, and/or comfort with compression was not evaluated in any study. CONCLUSION: Abdominal compression may not be appropriate for all patients, and benefit should be weighed with potential increase in motion or discomfort in patients with small initial motion (<5 mm). Patient factors including male sex, and high body mass index (BMI) were found to impact the effectiveness of compression, however with limited evidence. High-quality studies are warranted to fully assess the clinical impact of abdominal compression on treatment outcomes and toxicity prospective in comparison to other motion management strategies.

Treatment planning comparison in the PROTECT-trial randomising proton versus photon beam therapy in oesophageal cancer: Results from eight European centres.

PURPOSE: To compare dose distributions and robustness in treatment plans from eight European centres in preparation for the European randomized phase-III PROTECT-trial investigating the effect of proton therapy (PT) versus photon therapy (XT) for oesophageal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All centres optimized one PT and one XT nominal plan using delineated 4DCT scans for four patients receiving 50.4 Gy (RBE) in 28 fractions. Target volume receiving 95% of prescribed dose (V95%iCTVtotal) should be >99%. Robustness towards setup, range, and respiration was evaluated. The plans were recalculated on a surveillance 4DCT (sCT) acquired at fraction ten and robustness evaluation was performed to evaluate the effect of respiration and inter-fractional anatomical changes. RESULTS: All PT and XT plans complied with V95%iCTVtotal >99% for the nominal plan and V95%iCTVtotal >97% for all respiratory and robustness scenarios. Lung and heart dose varied considerably between centres for both modalities. The difference in mean lung dose and mean heart dose between each pair of XT and PT plans was in median [range] 4.8 Gy [1.1;7.6] and 8.4 Gy [1.9;24.5], respectively. Patients B and C showed large inter-fractional anatomical changes on sCT. For patient B, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal in the worst-case robustness scenario was 45% and 94% for XT and PT, respectively. For patient C, the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was 57% and 72% for XT and PT, respectively. Patient A and D showed minor inter-fractional changes and the minimum V95%iCTVtotal was >85%. CONCLUSION: Large variability in dose to the lungs and heart was observed for both modalities. Inter-fractional anatomical changes led to larger target dose deterioration for XT than PT plans.

Clinical challenges associated with utility of neoadjuvant treatment in patients with pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma.

Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) is an increasingly common cancer with a persistently poor prognosis, and only approximately 20% of patients are clearly anatomically resectable at diagnosis. Historically, a paucity of effective therapy made it inappropriate to forego the traditional gold standard of upfront surgery in favour of neoadjuvant treatment; however, modern combination chemotherapy regimens have made neoadjuvant therapy increasingly viable. As its use has expanded, the rationale for neoadjuvant therapy has evolved from one of 'downstaging' to one of early treatment of micro-metastases and selection of patients with favourable tumour biology for resection. Defining resectability in PDAC is problematic; multiple differing definitions exist. Multidisciplinary input, both in initial assessment of resectability and in supervision of multimodality therapy, is therefore advised. European and North American guidelines recommend the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in borderline resectable (BR)-PDAC. Similar regimens may be applied in locally advanced (LA)-PDAC with the aim of improving potential access to curative-intent resection, but appropriate patient selection is key due to significant rates of recurrence after excision of LA disease. Upfront surgery and adjuvant chemotherapy remain standard-of-care in clearly resectable PDAC, but multiple trials evaluating the use of neoadjuvant therapy in this and other localised settings are ongoing.

Estimating the percentage of patients who might benefit from proton beam therapy instead of X-ray radiotherapy.

OBJECTIVES: High-energy Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) commenced in England in 2018 and NHS England commissions PBT for 1.5% of patients receiving radical radiotherapy. We sought expert opinion on the level of provision. METHODS: Invitations were sent to 41 colleagues working in PBT, most at one UK centre, to contribute by completing a spreadsheet. 39 responded: 23 (59%) completed the spreadsheet; 16 (41%) declined, arguing that clinical outcome data are lacking, but joined six additional site-specialist oncologists for two consensus meetings. The spreadsheet was pre-populated with incidence data from Cancer Research UK and radiotherapy use data from the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service. 'Mechanisms of Benefit' of reduced growth impairment, reduced toxicity, dose escalation and reduced second cancer risk were examined. RESULTS: The most reliable figure for percentage of radical radiotherapy patients likely to benefit from PBT was that agreed by 95% of the 23 respondents at 4.3%, slightly larger than current provision. The median was 15% (range 4-92%) and consensus median 13%. The biggest estimated potential benefit was from reducing toxicity, median benefit to 15% (range 4-92%), followed by dose escalation median 3% (range 0 to 47%); consensus values were 12 and 3%. Reduced growth impairment and reduced second cancer risk were calculated to benefit 0.5% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: The most secure estimate of percentage benefit was 4.3% but insufficient clinical outcome data exist for confident estimates. The study supports the NHS approach of using the evidence base and developing it through randomised trials, non-randomised studies and outcomes tracking. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: Less is known about the percentage of patients who may benefit from PBT than is generally acknowledged. Expert opinion varies widely. Insufficient clinical outcome data exist to provide robust estimates. Considerable further work is needed to address this, including international collaboration; much is already underway but will take time to provide mature data.

Optimising treatment pathways for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer: an adaptive personalised approach.

The treatment paradigm for borderline and locally advanced pancreatic cancer is evolving with an increased shift towards utilising systemic chemotherapy and chemoradiation to potentially facilitate more curative resections. This has been driven by the improved outcomes from the use systemic combination chemotherapy on its own, or sequentially with chemoradiation, resulting in improved resection rates and survival outcomes.

Oxaliplatin/capecitabine or carboplatin/paclitaxel-based preoperative chemoradiation for resectable oesophageal adenocarcinoma (NeoSCOPE): Long-term results of a randomised controlled trial.

AIM: This is the first randomised study to evaluate toxicity and survival outcomes of two neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT) regimens for patients with localised oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) or gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma. The initial results showed comparable toxicity between regimens and pathological complete response (pCR) rate favouring CarPacRT. Herein, we report survival, progression patterns, and long-term toxicity after a median follow-up of 40.7 months. METHODS: NeoSCOPE was an open-label, UK multicentre, randomised, phase II trial. Eighty-five patients with resectable OAC or GOJ adenocarcinoma, ≥cT3 and/or ≥cN1 (TNM v7), suitable for neoadjuvant CRT, were recruited between October 2013 and February 2015. Patients were randomised to OxCapRT (oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2 on Days 1, 15, and 29; capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on days of radiotherapy [RT]) or CarPacRT (carboplatin AUC2; paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 on Days 1, 8, 15, 22, and 29). RT dose was 45 Gy/25 fractions/5 weeks. Both arms received induction chemotherapy (two cycles oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 on Day 1, capecitabine 625 mg/m2 orally twice daily on Days 1-21) before CRT. Surgery was performed 6-8 weeks after CRT. The primary end-point was pCR. Secondary end-points were toxicity, progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and patterns of progression. RESULTS: Eighty-five patients were recruited from 17 UK centres. The median OS was 41.7 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.6 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable hazard ratio [HR] = 0.48, 95% CIs: 0.24-0.95, P = 0.035). The median PFS was 32.6 months (95% CIs: 17.1 to not reached) in the OxCapRT arm and was not reached in the CarPacRT arm (multivariable HR = 0.54, 95% CIs: 0.29-1.01, P = 0.053). In both arms, the distant progression was twice as common as locoregional progression. CONCLUSIONS: OS and PFS favoured neoadjuvant CarPacRT over OxCapRT. Distant was more common than locoregional progression; therefore, priority should be given to optimising the systemic treatment component. CLINICAL TRIAL INFORMATION: EudraCT Number: 2012-000640-10; ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01843829.

Online learning in proton radiation therapy: the future in the post-Covid-19 pandemic era?

Objective: The Covid-19 pandemic placed unprecedented strain on medical education and led to a vast increase in online learning. Subsequently, the Christie International Proton School moved from face-to-face to online. Delegate feedback and current literature were studied to determine benefits, challenges, and potential solutions, for online proton therapy education. Methods: The course was converted to a 6-week online course with twice weekly 2-h sessions. Feedback was studied pre-, during-, and post-course regarding demographics, learning objectives, proton therapy knowledge, ease of engagement, technical difficulties, and course format. Statistical analyses were performed for proton therapy knowledge pre- and post-course. Results: An increase in delegate attendance was seen with increased international and multidisciplinary diversity. Learner objectives included treatment planning, clinical applications, physics, and centre development. Average learner reported scores of confidence in proton therapy knowledge improved significantly from 3, some knowledge, to 4, adequate knowledge after the course (p<0.0001). There were minimal reported difficulties using the online platform, good reported learner engagement, and shorter twice weekly sessions were reported conducive for learning. Recordings for asynchronous learning addressed time zone difficulties. Conclusion: The obligatory switch to online platforms has catalysed a paradigm shift towards online learning with delegates reporting educational benefit. We propose solutions to challenges of international online education, and a pedagogical model for online proton therapy education. Advances in knowledge: Online education is an effective method to teach proton therapy to international audiences. The future of proton education includes a hybrid of online and practical face-to-face learning depending on the level of cognitive skill required.

Patient and Public Involvement Refines the Design of ProtOeus: A Proposed Phase II Trial of Proton Beam Therapy in Oesophageal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy for oesophageal cancer significantly improves overall survival but is associated with severe post-operative complications. Proton beam therapy may reduce these toxicities by sparing normal tissues compared with standard radiotherapy. ProtOeus is a proposed randomised phase II study of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy in oesophageal cancer that compares proton beam therapy to standard radiotherapy techniques. As proton beam therapy services are often centralised in academic centres in major cities, proton beam therapy trials raise distinct challenges including patient acceptance of travelling for proton beam therapy, coordination of treatments with local centres and ensuring equity of access for patients. METHODS: Focus groups were held early in the trial development process to establish patients' views on the trial proposal. Topics discussed include perception of proton beam therapy, patient acceptability of the trial pathway and design, patient-facing materials, and common clinical scenarios. Focus groups were led by the investigators and facilitated by patient involvement teams from the institutions who are involved in this research. Responses for each topic were analysed, and fed back to the trial's development group. RESULTS: Three focus groups were held in separate locations in the UK (Manchester, Cardiff, Wigan). Proton beam therapy was perceived as superior to standard radiotherapy making the trial attractive. Patients felt strongly that travel costs should be reimbursed to ensure equity of access to proton beam therapy. They were very supportive of a shorter treatment schedule and felt that toxicity reduction was the most important endpoint. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Incorporating patient views early in the trial development process resulted in significant trial design refinements including travel/accommodation provisions, choice of primary endpoint, randomisation ratio and fractionation schedule. Focus groups are a reproducible and efficient method of incorporating the patient and public voice into research.