Timed Get Up and Go Test and Geriatric 8 Scores and the Association With (Chemo-)Radiation Therapy Noncompliance and Acute Toxicity in Elderly Cancer Patients.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether the Geriatric 8 (G8) and the Timed Get Up and Go Test (TGUGT) and clinical and demographic patient characteristics were associated with acute toxicity of radiation therapy and noncompliance in elderly cancer patients being irradiated with curative intent. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients were eligible if aged ≥65 years and diagnosed with breast, non-small cell lung, prostate, head and neck, rectal, or esophageal cancer, and were referred for curative radiation therapy. We recorded acute toxicity and noncompliance and identified potential predictors, including the G8 and TGUGT. RESULTS: We investigated 402 patients with a median age of 72 years (range, 65-96 years). According to the G8, 44.4% of the patients were frail. Toxicity grade ≥3 was observed in 22% of patients who were frail according to the G8 and 9.1% of patients who were not frail. The difference was 13% (confidence interval 5.2%-20%; P=.0006). According to the TGUGT 18.8% of the patients were frail; 21% of the frail according to the TGUGT developed toxicity grade ≥3, compared with 13% who were not frail. The difference was 7.3% (confidence interval -2.7% to 17%; P=.11). Overall compliance was 95%. Toxicity was most strongly associated with type of primary tumor, chemotherapy, age, and World Health Organization performance status. Compliance was associated with type of primary tumor and age. CONCLUSIONS: The usefulness of the TGUGT and G8 score in daily practice seems to be limited. Type of primary tumor, chemoradiotherapy, age, and World Health Organization performance status were more strongly associated with acute toxicity. Only chemoradiotherapy and age were associated with noncompliance. Overall the compliance was very high. To allow better-informed treatment decisions, a more accurate prediction of toxicity is desirable.

Automated daily breath hold stability measurements by real-time imaging in radiotherapy of breast cancer.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Breath hold is increasingly used for cardiac sparing in left-sided breast cancer irradiation. We have developed a fast automated method to verify breath hold stability in each treatment fraction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We evaluated 504 patients treated with breath hold. Moderate deep inspiration breath hold was audio-guided. Medial and lateral large tangential field segments were delivered in a single breath hold and movieloops of these fields were acquired with an EPID. The thoracic wall position was automatically detected in each frame and the full range of thoracic wall motion (RTWM) was determined. If the RTWM >4mm more than 3 times, the patient was excluded from breath hold treatment if further coaching did not yield improvement. RESULTS: Unstable breath hold was observed in 2.8% of the patients. However, this frequency dropped from 9.5% in the first 6months to 1.6% in the subsequent 16months. The 97% of patients with proper breath hold showed excellent stability: the average RTWM was 0.9±0.5mm. The reproducibility of the breath hold depth was confirmed by (1) the small difference between the thoracic wall positions in the medial and lateral fields within one fraction and (2) the setup errors of breath hold patients showed no significant differences with those of right-sided breast patients. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and clinically applied an imaging tool to automatically determine stability of breath holds in each treatment fraction during beam delivery.