A comparison of cardiovascular and pulmonary morbidities and risk factors in breast cancer survivors compared to an age-matched female control group in the Lifelines prospective population cohort.

PURPOSE: To provide more insight into late treatment-related toxicities among breast cancer (BC) survivors by comparing morbidities and risk factors between BC survivors and age-matched controls. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All female participants diagnosed with BC before inclusion in Lifelines, a population-based cohort in the Netherlands, were selected and matched 1:4 to female controls without any oncological history on birth year. Baseline was defined as the age at BC diagnosis. Outcomes were obtained from questionnaires and functional analyses performed at entry to Lifelines (follow-up 1; FU1) and several years later (FU2). Cardiovascular and pulmonary events were defined as morbidities that were absent at baseline but present at FU1 or FU2. RESULTS: The study consisted of 1,325 BC survivors and 5,300 controls. The median period from baseline (i.e., BC treatment) to FU1 and FU2 was 7 and 10 years, respectively. Among BC survivors more events of heart failure (OR: 1.72 [1.10-2.68]) and less events of hypertension (OR: 0.79 [0.66-0.94]) were observed. At FU2, more electrocardiographic abnormalities were found among BC survivors compared to controls (4.1% vs. 2.7%, respectively; p = 0.027) and Framingham scores for the 10-year risk of coronary heart disease were lower (difference: 0.37%; 95% CI [-0.70 to -0.03%]). At FU2, BC survivors had more frequently a forced vital capacity below the lower limit of normal than controls (5.4% vs. 2.9%, respectively; p = 0.040). CONCLUSION: BC survivors are at risk of late treatment-related toxicities despite a more favourable cardiovascular risk profile compared to age-matched female controls.

Model-Based Selection for Proton Therapy in Breast Cancer: Development of the National Indication Protocol for Proton Therapy and First Clinical Experiences.

AIMS: Proton therapy is a radiation technique that yields less dose in normal tissues than photon therapy. In the Netherlands, proton therapy is reimbursed if the reduced dose to normal tissues is predicted to translate into a prespecified reduction in toxicity, based on nationally approved validated models. The aim of this paper is to present the development of a national indication protocol for proton therapy (NIPP) for model-based selection of breast cancer patients and to report on first clinical experiences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A national proton therapy working group for breast cancer (PWG-BC) screened the literature for prognostic models able to estimate the individual risk of specific radiation-induced side-effects. After critical appraisal and selection of suitable models, a NIPP for breast cancer was written and subjected to comments by all stakeholders. The approved NIPP was subsequently introduced to select breast cancer patients who would benefit most from proton therapy. RESULTS: The model of Darby et al. (N Engl J Med 2013; 368:987-82) was the only model fulfilling the criteria prespecified by the PWG-BC. The model estimates the relative risk of an acute coronary event (ACE) based on the mean heart dose. The absolute lifetime risk of ACE <80 years was calculated by applying this model to the Dutch absolute incidence of ACE for female and male patients, between 40 and 70 years at breast cancer radiotherapy, with/without cardiovascular risk factors. The NIPP was approved for reimbursement in January 2019. Based on a threshold value of a 2% absolute lower risk on ACE for proton therapy compared with photons, 268 breast cancer patients have been treated in the Netherlands with proton therapy between February 2019 and January 2021. CONCLUSION: The NIPP includes a model that allows the estimation of the absolute risk on ACE <80 years based on mean heart dose. In the first 2 years, 268 breast cancer patients have been treated with proton therapy in The Netherlands.

Deep learning prediction of proton and photon dose distributions for paediatric abdominal tumours.

OBJECTIVE: Dose prediction using deep learning networks prior to radiotherapy might lead tomore efficient modality selections. The study goal was to predict proton and photon dose distributions based on the patient-specific anatomy and to assess their clinical usage for paediatric abdominal tumours. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from 80 patients with neuroblastoma or Wilms' tumour was included. Pencil beam scanning (PBS) (5 mm/ 3%) and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plans (5 mm) were robustly optimized on the internal target volume (ITV). Separate 3-dimensional patch-based U-net networks were trained to predict PBS and VMAT dose distributions. Doses, planning-computed tomography images and relevant optimization masks (ITV, vertebra and organs-at-risk) of 60 patients were used for training with a 5-fold cross validation. The networks' performance was evaluated by computing the relative error between planned and predicted dose-volume histogram (DVH) parameters for 20 inference patients. In addition, the organs-at-risk mean dose difference between modalities was calculated using planned and predicted dose distributions (ΔDmean = DVMAT-DPBS). Two radiation oncologists performed a blind PBS/VMAT modality selection based on either planned or predicted ΔDmean. RESULTS: Average DVH differences between planned and predicted dose distributions were ≤ |6%| for both modalities. The networks classified the organs-at-risk Dmean difference as a gain (ΔDmean > 0) with 98% precision. An identical modality selection based on planned compared to predicted ΔDmean was made for 18/20 patients. CONCLUSION: Deep learning networks for accurate prediction of proton and photon dose distributions for abdominal paediatric tumours were established. These networks allowing fast dose visualisation might aid in identifying the optimal radiotherapy technique when experience and/or resources are unavailable.

Symptoms in long-term breast cancer survivors: A cross-sectional study in primary care.

PURPOSE: Various long-term symptoms can manifest after breast cancer treatment, but we wanted to clarify whether these are more frequent among long-term breast cancer survivors than matched controls and if they are associated with certain diagnoses. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, population-based study of 350 breast cancer survivors treated with chemo- and/or radiotherapy ≥5 years (median 10) after diagnosis and 350 women without cancer matched by age and primary care physician. All women completed a questionnaire enquiring about symptoms, underwent echocardiography to assess the left ventricle ejection fraction, and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Cardiovascular diseases were diagnosed from primary care records. In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, symptoms were adjusted for the long-term effects and compared between cohorts and within the survivor group. RESULTS: Concentration difficulties, forgetfulness, dizziness, and nocturia were more frequent among breast cancer survivors compared with controls, but differences could not be explained by cardiac dysfunction, cardiovascular diseases, depression, or anxiety. Intermittent claudication and appetite loss were more frequent among breast cancer survivors than controls and associated with cardiac dysfunction, depression, and anxiety. Breast cancer survivors treated with chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy were at significantly higher odds of forgetfulness and nocturia, but significantly lower odds of dizziness, compared with breast cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy alone. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent claudication and appetite loss are common among breast cancer survivors and are associated with cardiac dysfunction and mood disorders. Other symptoms varied by whether the patient underwent chemotherapy with/without radiotherapy (forgetfulness and nocturia) radiotherapy alone (dizziness).

The added value of immediate breast reconstruction to health-related quality of life of breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) may improve the quality of life (QoL) of breast cancer patients. Guidelines recommend to discuss the option IBR with all patients undergoing mastectomy. However, substantial hospital variation in IBR-rates was previously observed in the Netherlands, influenced by patient, tumour and hospital factors and clinicians' believes. Information provision about IBR may have a positive effect on receiving IBR and therefore QoL. This study investigated patient-reported QoL of patients treated with mastectomy with and without IBR. METHODS: An online survey, encompassing the validated BREAST-Q questionnaire, was distributed to a representative sample of 1218 breast cancer patients treated with mastectomy. BREAST-Q scores were compared between patients who had undergone mastectomy either with or without IBR. RESULTS: A total of 445 patients were included for analyses: 281 patients with and 164 without IBR. Patients who had received IBR showed significantly higher BREAST-Q scores on "psychosocial well-being" (75 versus 67, p < 0.001), "sexual well-being" (62 versus 52, p < 0.001) and "physical well-being" (77 versus 74, p = 0.021) compared to patients without IBR. No statistically significant difference was found for "satisfaction with breasts" (64 versus 62, p = 0.21). Similar results were found after multivariate regression analyses, revealing IBR to be an independent factor for a better patient-reported QoL. CONCLUSIONS: Patients diagnosed with breast cancer with IBR following mastectomy report a better QoL on important psychosocial, sexual and physical well-being domains. This further supports the recommendation to discuss the option of IBR with all patients with an indication for mastectomy and to enable shared decision-making.

Risk communication in a patient decision aid for radiotherapy in breast cancer: How to deal with uncertainty?

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Patient decision aids for oncological treatment options, provide information on the effect on recurrence rates and/or survival benefit, and on side-effects and/or burden of different treatment options. However, often uncertainty exists around the probability estimates for recurrence/survival and side-effects which is too relevant to be ignored. Evidence is lacking on the best way to communicate these uncertainties. The aim of this study is to develop a method to incorporate uncertainties in a patient decision aid for breast cancer patients to support their decision on radiotherapy. METHODS: Firstly, qualitative interviews were held with patients and health care professionals. Secondly, in the development phase, thinking aloud sessions were organized with four patients and 12 health care professionals, individual and group-wise. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a pictograph illustrating the whole range of uncertainty for local recurrence risks, in combination with textual explanation that a more exact personalized risk would be given by their own physician. The pictograph consisted of 100 female icons in a 10 x 10 array. Icons with a stepwise gradient color indicated the uncertainty margin. The prevalence and severity of possible side-effects were explained using verbal labels. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a novel way of visualizing uncertainties in recurrence rates in a patient decision aid. The effect of this way of communicating risk uncertainty is currently being tested in the BRASA study (NCT03375801).

Correspondence between primary and secondary care about patients with cancer: a Delphi consensus study.

INTRODUCTION: To provide optimal care for patients with cancer, timely and efficient communication between healthcare providers is essential. In this study, we aimed to achieve consensus regarding the desired content of communication between general practitioners (GPs) and oncology specialists before and during the initial treatment of cancer. METHODS: In a two-round Delphi procedure, three expert panels reviewed items recommended for inclusion on referral and specialist letters. RESULTS: The three panels comprised 39 GPs (42%), 42 oncology specialists (41%) (i.e. oncologists, radiotherapists, urologists and surgeons) and 18 patients or patient representatives (69%). Final agreement was by consensus, with 12 and 35 items included in the GP referral and the specialist letters, respectively. The key requirements of GP referral letters were that they should be limited to medical facts, a short summary of symptoms and abnormal findings, and the reason for referral. There was a similar requirement for letters from specialists to include these same medical facts, but detailed information was also required about the diagnosis, treatment options and chosen treatment. After two rounds, the overall content validity index (CVI) for both letters was 71%, indicating that a third round was not necessary. DISCUSSION: This is the first study to differentiate between essential and redundant information in GP referral and specialist letters, and the findings could be used to improve communication between primary and secondary care.

Variation in the Use of Boost Irradiation in Breast-Conserving Therapy in the Netherlands: The Effect of a National Guideline and Cofounding Factors.

AIMS: To determine the variation in radiation therapy boost use in a nationwide study following adjustment of a national guideline in 2011, as well as to address the relationship to patient, tumour and radiation therapy institutional factors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All invasive breast cancers and non-invasive breast cancers (ductal carcinoma in situ; DCIS) that received external whole-breast radiation between 2011 and 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Box plots were used to evaluate variation over time and logistic regression was carried out to address other factors influencing the variation. Funnel plots were constructed, with unadjusted and adjusted data for patient and tumour factors significantly affecting the use of a boost. RESULTS: For breast cancer patients (n = 45,207), the proportion receiving a boost and its range decreased over the years from 37.3-92.7% in 2011 to 28.3-65.4% in 2016. This trend was not observed in DCIS patients (n = 6,844). Young age, large tumours, high grade and the absence of tumour-free resection margins were associated with boost use for both breast cancer and DCIS. For breast cancer, triple-negative tumour subtype and metastatic lymph node involvement were also associated with boost use. Institutional factors did not influence the use of a boost and institutional variation remained substantial after case-mix adjustments. CONCLUSION: Following adjustment of a nationwide implemented guideline, variation in radiation therapy boost use decreased in patients with breast cancer but not in patients with DCIS. Several tumour and patient characteristics were associated with boost use. Substantial institutional variation could not be explained by differences in patient, tumour or predefined institutional characteristics.

The effect of being informed on receiving immediate breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients.

INTRODUCTION: In previous research from the NABON breast cancer audit, observed hospital variation in immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) rates in the Netherlands could not be fully explained by tumour, patient, and hospital factors. The process of information provision and decision-making may also contribute to the observed variation; the objective of the current study was to give insight in the underlying decision-making process for IBR and to determine the effect of being informed about IBR on receiving IBR. METHODS: A total of 502 patients with IBR and 716 without IBR treated at twenty-nine hospitals were invited to complete an online questionnaire on obtained information and decision-making regarding IBR. The effect of being informed about IBR on receiving IBR was determined by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Responses from five hundred and ten patients (n = 229 IBR, n = 281 without IBR) were analysed. Patients with IBR compared to patients without reconstruction showed a difference in patient, tumour, treatment (including radiotherapy), and hospital characteristics. Patients with IBR were more often informed about IBR as a treatment option (99% vs 73%), they discussed (dis)advantages more often with their physician (86% vs 68%), and they were more often involved in shared decision-making (91% vs 67%) compared to patients without IBR. Multivariate logistic regression analysis, corrected for confounders, showed that being informed about IBR increased the odds for receiving IBR fourteen times (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The positive effect of being informed about IBR on receiving IBR stresses the importance of treatment information in the decision-making process for IBR.

Hospital organizational factors affect the use of immediate breast reconstruction after mastectomy for breast cancer in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: Significant hospital variation in the use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy exists in the Netherlands. Aims of this study were to identify hospital organizational factors affecting the use of IBR after mastectomy for ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) or invasive breast cancer (BC) and to analyze whether these factors explain the variation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with DCIS or primary invasive BC treated with mastectomy between 2011 and 2013 were selected from the national NABON Breast Cancer Audit. Hospital and organizational factors were collected with an online web-based survey. Regression analyses were performed to determine whether these factors accounted for the hospital variation. RESULTS: In total, 78% (n = 72) of all Dutch hospitals participated in the survey. In these hospitals 16,471 female patients underwent a mastectomy for DCIS (n = 1,980) or invasive BC (n = 14,491) between 2011 and 2014. IBR was performed in 41% of patients with DCIS (hospital range 0-80%) and in 17% of patients with invasive BC (hospital range 0-62%). Hospital type, number of plastic surgeons available and attendance of a plastic surgeon at the MDT meeting increased IBR rates. For invasive BC, higher percentage of mastectomies and more weekly MDT meetings also significantly increased IBR rates. Adjusted data demonstrated decreased IBR rates for DCIS (average 35%, hospital range 0-49%) and invasive BC (average 15%, hospital range 0-18%). CONCLUSION: Hospital organizational factors affect the use of IBR in the Netherlands. Although only partly explaining hospital variation, optimization of these factors could lead to less variation in IBR rates.

Large variation between hospitals in immediate breast reconstruction rates after mastectomy for breast cancer in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The present study aimed to describe the use of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) after mastectomy for invasive breast cancer and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in hospitals in the Netherlands and determine whether patient and tumor factors account for the variation. METHODS: Patients undergoing mastectomy for primary invasive breast cancer or DCIS diagnosed between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013 were selected from the NABON Breast Cancer Audit. All the 92 hospitals in the Netherlands were included. The use of IBR in all hospitals was compared using unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Patient and tumor factors were evaluated by univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: In total, 16,953 patients underwent mastectomy: 15,072 for invasive breast cancer and 1881 for DCIS. Unadjusted analyses revealed considerable variation between hospitals in postmastectomy IBR rates for invasive breast cancer (mean 17%; range 0-64%) and DCIS (mean 42%; range 0-83%). For DCIS, younger age and multifocal disease were factors that significantly increased IBR rates. For patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer, IBR was more often used in younger patients, multifocal tumors, smaller tumors, tumors with a lower grade, absence of lymph node involvement, ductal carcinomas, or hormone-receptor positive/HER2-positive tumors. After case-mix adjustments for these factors, the variation in the use of IBR between hospitals remained large (0-43% for invasive breast cancer and 0-74% for DCIS). CONCLUSIONS: A large variation between hospitals was found in postmastectomy IBR rates in the Netherlands for both invasive breast cancer and DCIS even after adjustment for patient and tumor factors.

Radiation-induced fibrosis in the boost area after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy with a simultaneous integrated boost technique for early-stage breast cancer: A multivariable prediction model.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: To develop a multivariable prediction model for the risk of grade⩾2 fibrosis in the boost area after breast conserving surgery (BCS) followed by three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (RT) with a simultaneous integrated photon boost (3D-CRT-SIB), five years after RT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective cohort study included 1,030 patients treated with RT for breast cancer (stage 0-III), after BCS. Data regarding physician-rated fibrosis and dose-volume parameters were available in 546 patients. A multivariable logistic regression model for grade⩾2 fibrosis was generated. RESULTS: At 5years, grade⩾2 fibrosis was observed in 13.4% of the patients. The multivariable analysis resulted in a prediction model for grade⩾2 fibrosis in the boost area including three independent variables: patient age, breast volume receiving⩾55Gy (V55 CTV breast) and the maximum radiation dose in the breast (Dmax). CONCLUSIONS: A multivariable prediction model was developed including age, V55 CTV breast and Dmax for grade⩾2 fibrosis in the boost area after breast cancer RT using a 3D-CRT-SIB technique. This model can be used to estimate the risk of fibrosis and to optimize dose distributions aiming at reducing this risk.

Factors influencing time between surgery and radiotherapy: A population based study of breast cancer patients.

This study describes variation in the time interval between surgery and radiotherapy in breast cancer (BC) patients and assesses factors at patient, hospital and radiotherapy centre (RTC) level influencing this variation. To do so, the factors were investigated in BC patients using multilevel logistic regression. The study sample consisted of 15,961 patients from the Netherlands Cancer Registry at 79 hospitals and 19 (RTCs) with breast-conserving surgery or mastectomy directly followed by radiotherapy. The percentage of patients starting radiotherapy ≤42 days varied from 14% to 94%. Early year of incidence, higher age, higher stage, mastectomy, higher ASA category and no availability of radiotherapy facilities were significantly associated with a longer time interval between radiotherapy and surgery. More patients received radiotherapy ≤42 days in hospitals with on-site radiotherapy facilities (OR 1.36, p = 0.024). Among the remainder, significant variation was found at the RTC level (11.1%, σ(2) = 0.254, SE 0.054), and at the hospital level (6.4% σ2 = 0.443, SE 0.163) (ICC 0.064). The significant delay and unexplained variance remaining at the RCT and hospital level suggests delays caused by the patient referral pathway from hospital to RCT, and indicates potential for improvement at both levels.

The impact of age on changes in quality of life among breast cancer survivors treated with breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine the impact of young age on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) by comparing HRQoL of younger and older breast cancer patients, corrected for confounding, and of young patients and a general Dutch population. METHODS: The population consisted of breast cancer survivors (stage 0-III) after breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy. Health-related quality of life was prospectively assessed using the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires. The association between age (⩽50; 51-70; ⩾70 years) and HRQoL over time was analysed with mixed modelling. The clinical relevance of differences between/within age groups was estimated with Cohen's D and consensus-based guidelines. The HRQoL data from the young patient cohort were compared with Dutch reference data at 3 years after radiotherapy. RESULTS: A total of 1420 patients completed 3200 questionnaires. Median follow-up was 34 (range 6-70) months. Median age was 59 (range 28-85) years. Compared with older subjects, young women reported worse HRQoL in the first year after radiotherapy, but clinical relevance was limited. Three years after radiotherapy, HRQoL values in the younger group were equal to those in the reference population. Pain and fatigue after radiotherapy improved, with medium clinical relevance. CONCLUSIONS: Three years after radiotherapy for breast cancer, young age was not a risk factor for decreased HRQoL.

Long-term follow-up for cardiovascular disease after chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for breast cancer in an unselected population.

PURPOSE: Whereas earlier research focused on specific patient groups, this study assessed the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in an unselected population curatively treated for breast cancer (BC), compared with an age-matched random sample of controls. METHODS: Risks were determined in BC survivors and controls. CVD was divided into three categories: congestive heart failure, vascular cardiac diseases, and "other" cardiac diseases. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) adjusted for age, CVD, and CVD risk factors at baseline were determined by Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: All 561 survivors of BC experienced surgery of whom 229 received (neo)adjuvant radiotherapy, 145 received chemotherapy (with or without radiotherapy), and 187 received no adjuvant therapy. During follow-up (median 9; range 5-57 years), CVD occurred in 176/561 (31%) survivors and in 398/1,635 (24%) controls. After radiotherapy, no increased risks of congestive heart failure (HR 0.5; 95% CI 0.2-1.8), vascular cardiac diseases (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.7-1.7), or other cardiac diseases (HR 1.3; 95% CI 0.8-2.3) were found compared with controls. Similar results were found after chemotherapy for congestive heart failure (HR 1.8; 95% CI 0.6-5.8), vascular cardiac diseases (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.5-2.3), and other cardiac diseases (HR 1.2; 95% CI 0.3-5.5). CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population of BC survivors, no significant increased risk of CVD after radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy was found compared with controls. However, the HRs after chemotherapy were in-line with previous studies. Future studies should include more detailed information on treatment and more specific outcome measures.

Impact of primary local treatment on the development of distant metastases or death through locoregional recurrence in young breast cancer patients.

In this study, we tested the hypothesis whether breast conserving therapy (BCT) compared with mastectomy is associated with a negative outcome in terms of distant metastases or death (DMD) and investigated the relation between locoregional recurrence (LRR) and DMD in young breast cancer (BC) patients. This study included a consecutive series of 536 patients ≤40 years of age at diagnosis with pathological T1N0-3M0 BC, treated between 1989 and 2005. A multistate survival model was used to evaluate the influences of local treatment and LRR on DMD, adjusted for potential prognostic factors. Patients were treated with mastectomy (N = 213) or BCT (N = 323). Median age at diagnosis was 36.3 years, with a median follow-up of 9.0 years. The 10-year actuarial cumulative incidence of DMD was 30.6 % after mastectomy and 26.3 % after BCT (P = 0.04). In total, 81 (15 %) LRRs were observed. After BCT, patients had a threefold higher risk of LRR than after mastectomy (HR 2.9; 95 % CI 1.6-5.3). Patients with LRR had a higher risk of DMD compared with patients without LRR (HR 5.5; 95 % CI 2.1-14.5). However, BCT was not negatively associated with DMD-after-LRR (HR 0.47; 95 % CI 0.2-1.1, BCT vs mastectomy). In conclusion, although LRR significantly affected DMD, the increased risk of LRR after BCT compared with mastectomy did not lead to a worse DMD outcome in BC patients ≤40 years of age.

Acute and long-term toxicity following radiotherapy alone or in combination with chemotherapy for locally advanced cervical cancer.

Randomised studies in locally advanced cervical cancer patients showed that cisplatin should be given concurrently with radiotherapy, because of a better long-term survival compared to radiotherapy alone. This increases the relevance of treatment related toxicity. This review summarises the acute and long-term toxicity of radiotherapy given with or without chemotherapy for cervical cancer. Acute toxicity (all grades) of radiotherapy is reported in 61% of the patients in the rectosigmoid, in 27% as urological, in 27% as skin and in 20% as gynaecological toxicity. Moderate and severe morbidity consists of 5% to 7% gastrointestinal and 1% to 4% genitourinary toxicity. Adding chemotherapy to radiotherapy increases acute haematological toxicity to 5% to 37% of the patients and nausea and vomiting in 12% to 14%. Late effects of radiotherapy include gastrointestinal, urological, female reproductive tract, skeletal and vascular toxicity, secondary malignancies and quality of life issues. For at least 20 years after treatment, new side effects may develop. Gastrointestinal toxicity usually occurs in the first 2 years after treatment in about 10% of the patients. The incidence of moderate and severe urological toxicity can increase up to 10% and rises over time. Gynaecological toxicity usually occurs shortly after treatment while skeletal and vascular toxicity can occur years to decades later. Thus far, no increase in late toxicity has been observed after the addition of cisplatin to radiotherapy. Finally, methods to prevent or decrease late toxicity and therapeutical options are discussed. However, most randomised studies still have a limited follow-up period.