Radiotherapy-related insufficiency fractures and bone mineral density: what is the connection?

Background: Radiotherapy-related insufficiency fractures (RRIFs) represent a common, burdensome consequence of pelvic radiotherapy. Their underlying mechanisms remain unclear, and data on the effect of osteoporosis are contradictory, with limited studies assessing bone mineral density (BMD) by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA). Methods: BMD by DXA (Hologic) scan and fracture risk following pelvic RRIF were retrospectively assessed in 39 patients (median age 68 years) at a tertiary cancer centre. Patient characteristics and treatment history are presented narratively; correlations were explored using univariate regression analyses. Results: Additional cancer treatments included chemotherapy (n = 31), surgery (n = 20) and brachytherapy (n = 19). Median interval between initiation of radiotherapy and RRIF was 11 (7.5-20.8) and that between RRIF and DXA 3 was (1-6) months. Three patients had normal BMD, 16 had osteopenia and 16 osteoporosis, following World Health Organization classification. Four patients were <40 years at the time of DXA (all Z-scores > -2). Median 10-year risk for hip and major osteoporotic fracture was 3.1% (1.5-5.7) and 11.5% (7.1-13.8), respectively. Only 33.3% of patients had high fracture risk (hip fracture >4% and/or major osteoporotic >20%), and 31% fell above the intervention threshold per National Osteoporosis Guidelines Group (NOGG) guidance (2017). Higher BMD was predicted by lower pelvic radiotherapy dose (only in L3 and L4), concomitant chemotherapy and higher body mass index. Conclusion: At the time of RRIF, most patients did not have osteoporosis, some had normal BMD and overall had low fracture risk. Whilst low BMD is a probable risk factor, it is unlikely to be the main mechanism underlying RRIFs, and further studies are required to understand the predictive value of BMD.

Palliative radiotherapy in cancers of female genital tract: Outcomes and prognostic factors.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Metastatic and incurable cancers of the gynaecological tract (FGTC) represent a major global health burden. Systemic treatment has modest efficacy and radiotherapy is often used for local symptoms. This study combines experience from two large UK centres in palliative radiotherapy for gynaecological cancers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pooled data from two major centres was analysed. Advanced FGTC patients who received at least one fraction of palliative radiotherapy to the pelvis between 2013 and 2018 were included. Data collected included demographic and tumour details, radiotherapy dose fractionation and details of previous and subsequent treatment. Response was defined in terms of toxicity, symptomatic response and survival. Comorbidities were recorded using a modified ACE 27 score which is adjusted for the presence of uncontrolled FGTC in all the patients. RESULTS: A total of 184 patients were included for treatment response and toxicity; survival data was available for 165 patients. Subjective response in pre-radiotherapy symptoms was documented in 80.4%. Grade 3 or worse gastrointestinal, urinary and other (vomiting, fatigue, pain) toxicity incidence was 2.2%, 3.8%, and 2.7% respectively. No statistically significant correlation between the prescribed EQD210 and symptom control or toxicity was seen. 1 year overall survival was 25.1% (median 5.9 months). Absent distant metastases, completion of the intended course of radiotherapy, response to radiotherapy, and receipt of further lines of treatment were independent prognostic factors. CONCLUSION: Palliative radiotherapy is effective for symptoms of advanced FGTC with low toxicity. The absence of a dose response argues for short low dose palliative radiotherapy schedules to be used.

RadBone: bone toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy - a prospective randomised controlled feasibility study evaluating a musculoskeletal health package in women with gynaecological cancers undergoing pelvic radiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: Patients receiving radiotherapy are at risk of developing radiotherapy-related insufficiency fractures, which are associated with increased morbidity and pose a significant burden to patients' quality of life and to the health system. Therefore, effective preventive techniques are urgently required. The RadBone randomised controlled trial (RCT) aims to determine the feasibility and acceptability of a musculoskeletal health package (MHP) intervention in women undergoing pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological malignancies and to preliminary explore clinical effectiveness of the intervention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The RadBone RCT will evaluate the addition to standard care of an MHP consisting of a physical assessment of the musculoskeletal health, a 3-month prehabilitation personalised exercise package, as well as an evaluation of the fracture risk and if required the prescription of appropriate bone treatment including calcium, vitamin D and-for high-risk individuals-bisphosphonates. Forty participants will be randomised in each group (MHP or observation) and will be followed for 18 months. The primary outcome of this RCT will be feasibility, including the eligibility, screening and recruitment rate, intervention fidelity and attrition rates; acceptability and health economics. Clinical effectiveness and bone turnover markers will be evaluated as secondary outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Reference: 20/NW/0410, November 2020). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals, will be presented in national and international conferences and will be communicated to relevant stakeholders. Moreover, a plain English report will be shared with the study participants, patients' organisations and media. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04555317.

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.

The case for including bowel urgency in toxicity reporting after pelvic cancer treatment.

Bowel toxicity is a major complication of cancer treatment, and its accurate reporting is important for assessing outcomes. The NCI's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) is the preferred method for capturing adverse events after all cancer treatments, particularly within clinical trials. However, the CTCAE version 4 does not include urgency of defecation as an item, despite this being one of the most common and persistent adverse consequences of treatment of pelvic cancers. The importance of bowel urgency to patients is well documented, and this treatment effect has a negative impact on social function and quality of life. Bowel urgency is also important clinically because it may represent significant underlying problems. This article presents the case for including patient reported assessment of bowel urgency as an independent item in cancer treatment adverse event reporting.

Prospective analysis of patient-reported late toxicity following pelvic radiotherapy for gynaecological cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: As late radiotherapy toxicity impacts negatively on the quality-of-life of cancer survivors and is often under reported, a study was set up to prospectively collect patient-reported data in an unselected series of patients with gynaecological malignancy. Aim 1 - To provide 3 year results for the longitudinal study. Aim 2 - To improve the questionnaire used to collect data by identifying redundant items and modifying for use to collect Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) data. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Aim 1 - Patient reported outcome data were collected prospectively by 226 patients before and up to 3 years following radiotherapy for gynaecological cancer using a questionnaire developed to collect LENT subjective data. Aim 2 - A factor analysis was performed to identify which questions gave the most and least information. RESULTS: Aim 1 - Faecal urgency and incontinence (all grades) peaked at 79% and 24%, respectively at 1 year then settled to 69% and 18% at 3 years, respectively. Urinary urgency (all grades) increased with time and was described in 75% at 3 years. Other symptoms reported at 3 years include diarrhoea in 12%, urinary incontinence in 27% and vaginal dryness in 29%. A third of patients did not feel their sex life had changed following treatment, while a quarter felt that it had. Aim 2 - some questions overlapped and others were non-specific. The questionnaire has subsequently been altered. CONCLUSIONS: The extent of late toxicity is substantial. This detailed information is important for both patients and clinicians in terms of treatment decisions and follow-up care. The LENT questionnaire provides a feasible tool for capture of this information in the clinic.

Efficacy of data capture for patient-reported toxicity following radiotherapy for prostate or cervical cancer.

We investigated the efficacy of data capture of patient-reported toxicity following radiotherapy by comparing electronic and paper formats. Patient-reported toxicity questionnaires based on items from the NCI Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) were created for patients receiving radiotherapy. Electronic and paper questionnaires had identical questions. Thirty seven gynaecological cancer and 40 prostate cancer patients completed questionnaires. Both questionnaire formats (electronic and paper) were completed by each patient at time points before and after radiotherapy. The average questionnaire and subsection scores for each format were compared directly and by using intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficients. The internal consistency/reliability was assessed by determining Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Patient preference for questionnaire format including clarity and ease-of-use was recorded. 324 questionnaires were collected as part of this study. A similar pattern of average subsection scores was found for the electronic and paper questionnaires. ICC coefficients for the mean overall questionnaire scores and subsection scores were high (>0.8). Cronbach's alpha was generally greater than 0.6, indicating that the reliability was high. Of the patients that responded, 27.3% preferred the electronic format, 25.7% preferred the paper format and 47% had no preference. The average time taken to complete a questionnaire was about 9 minutes for each format. The different questionnaire formats measured toxicity effects consistently and were reliable for both gynaecological cancer and prostate cancer patients. The survey indicated that patients found the questionnaires clear, easy to understand and straightforward to complete. Electronic data capture of patient-reported toxicity for CTCAE is feasible and acceptable.