Most patients reported positively or neutrally of having served as controls in the trials within cohorts design.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' experience of having served as controls without a notification at the time of randomization in the context of the trial within cohorts (TwiCs) design. METHODS: Patients were asked for their opinion on having served as controls in TwiCs, before and after having been provided the trial results. Patients had provided broad consent to randomization at cohort entry and had served as controls in one of two TwiCs (an exercise program after breast cancer treatment or radiotherapy dose-escalation for rectal cancer). RESULTS: Two to 6 years after cohort entry, 15% (n = 16) of all patients remembered having provided broad consent to randomization. Before disclosure of trial results, 47% (n = 52) of patients thought positively, 45% (n = 50) neutrally, and 2% (n = 2) negatively of having served as controls in one of the two trials. Seventeen percent (n = 18) of patients were positive, 65% (n = 71) neutral, and 11% (n = 12) negative about not having been notified when serving as controls. The survey results were comparable after disclosure of trial results. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of the TwiCs design with the staged-informed consent procedure. Keeping patients engaged and aware of the consents provided might further improve patients' experience of serving as controls in TwiCs.

Impact of Dose-Escalated Chemoradiation on Quality of Life in Patients With Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer: 2-Year Follow-Up of the Randomized RECTAL-BOOST Trial.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated chemoradiation (CRT) for locally advanced rectal cancer did not result in higher complete response rates but initiated more tumor regression in the randomized RECTAL-BOOST trial (Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01951521). This study compared patient reported outcomes between patients who received dose-escalated CRT (5 × 3 gray boost + CRT) or standard CRT for 2 years after randomization. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who were participating in the RECTAL-BOOST trial filled out European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and CR29 questionnaires on quality of life (QoL) and symptoms at baseline, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after start of treatment. Between-group differences in functional QoL domains were estimated using a linear mixed-effects model and expressed as effect size (ES). Symptom scores were compared using Mann-Whitney U test. RESULTS: Patients treated with dose-escalated CRT (boost group, n = 51) experienced a significantly stronger decline in global health at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.4 and ES -0.4), physical functioning at 6 months (ES -1.1), role functioning at 3 and 6 months (ES -0.8 and ES -0.6), and social functioning at 6 months (ES -0.6), compared with patients treated with standard CRT (control group, n = 64). The boost group reported significantly more fatigue at 3 and 6 months (83% vs 66% respectively 89% vs 76%), pain at 3 and 6 months (67% vs 36% respectively 80% vs 44%), and diarrhea at 3 months (45% vs 29%) compared with the control group. From 12 months onwards, QoL and symptoms were similar between groups, apart from more blood/mucus in stool in the boost group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, dose-escalated CRT resulted in a transient deterioration in global health, physical, role, and social functioning and more pain, fatigue and diarrhea at 3 and 6 months after start of treatment compared with standard CRT. From 12 months onwards, the effect of dose-escalated CRT on QoL largely resolved.

Prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this article was to systematically review the efficacy and safety of various antiemetics in prophylaxis of radiation-induced nausea and vomiting (RINV). METHODS: A literature search of Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the efficacy of prophylaxis for RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, including total body irradiation (TBI). Primary endpoints were complete control of nausea and complete control of vomiting during acute and delayed phases. Secondary endpoints included use of rescue medication, quality of life (QoL) and incidence of adverse events. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs were identified. Among patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis, our meta-analysis showed that prophylaxis with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist (5HT3 RA) was significantly more efficacious than placebo and dopamine receptor antagonists in both complete control of vomiting [OR 0.49; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.72 and OR 0.17; 95% CI: 0.05-0.58 respectively] and complete control of nausea (OR 0.43; 95% CI: 0.26-0.70 and OR 0.46; 95% CI: 0.24-0.88 respectively). 5HT3 RAs were also more efficacious than rescue therapy and dopamine receptor antagonists plus dexamethasone. The addition of dexamethasone to 5HT3 RA compared to 5HT3 RA alone provides a modest improvement in prophylaxis of RINV. Among patients receiving TBI, 5HT3 RA was more effective than other agents (placebo, combination of metoclopramide, dexamethasone and lorazepam). CONCLUSIONS: 5HT3 RAs are more effective than other antiemetics for prophylaxis of RINV in patients receiving radiotherapy to abdomen/pelvis and TBI. Future RCTs should investigate the efficacy of newer agents such as substance P neurokinin 1 receptor antagonists in addition to 5HT3 RAs in prophylaxis of RINV during both acute and delayed phases.

RandomizEd controlled trial for pre-operAtive dose-escaLation BOOST in locally advanced rectal cancer (RECTAL BOOST study): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) consists of chemoradiation therapy (CRT) and surgery. Approximately 15% of patients show a pathological complete response (pCR). Increased pCR-rates can be achieved through dose escalation, thereby increasing the number patients eligible for organ-preservation to improve quality of life (QoL). A randomized comparison of 65 versus 50Gy with external-beam radiation alone has not yet been performed. This trial investigates pCR rate, clinical response, toxicity, QoL and (disease-free) survival in LARC patients treated with 65Gy (boost + chemoradiation) compared with 50Gy standard chemoradiation (sCRT). METHODS/DESIGN: This study follows the 'cohort multiple randomized controlled trial' (cmRCT) design: rectal cancer patients are included in a prospective cohort that registers clinical baseline, follow-up, survival and QoL data. At enrollment, patients are asked consent to offer them experimental interventions in the future. Eligible patients-histologically confirmed LARC (T3NxM0 <1 mm from mesorectal fascia, T4NxM0 or TxN2M0) located ≤10 cm from the anorectal transition who provided consent for experimental intervention offers-form a subcohort (n = 120). From this subcohort, a random sample is offered the boost prior to sCRT (n = 60), which they may accept or refuse. Informed consent is signed only after acceptance of the boost. Non-selected patients in the subcohort (n = 60) undergo sCRT alone and are not notified that they participate in the control arm until the trial is completed. sCRT consists of 50Gy (25 × 2Gy) with concomitant capecitabine. The boost (without chemotherapy) is given prior to sCRT and consists of 15 Gy (5 × 3Gy) delivered to the gross tumor volume (GTV). The primary endpoint is pCR (TRG 1). Secondary endpoints include acute grade 3-4 toxicity, good pathologic response (TRG 1-2), clinical response, surgical complications, QoL and (disease-free) survival. Data is analyzed by intention to treat. DISCUSSION: The boost is delivered prior to sCRT so that GTV adjustment for tumor shrinkage during sCRT is not necessary. Small margins also aim to limit irradiation of healthy tissue. The cmRCT design provides opportunity to overcome common shortcomings of classic RCTs, such as slow recruitment, disappointment-bias in control arm patients and poor generalizability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trials Register NL46051.041.13. Registered 22 August 2013. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01951521 . Registered 18 September 2013.

Statistical modeling of CTV motion and deformation for IMRT of early-stage rectal cancer.

PURPOSE: To derive and validate a statistical model of motion and deformation for the clinical target volume (CTV) of early-stage rectal cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: For 16 patients, 4 to 5 magnetic resonance images (MRI) were acquired before each fraction was administered. The CTV was delineated on each MRI. Using a leave-one-out methodology, we constructed a population-based principal component analysis (PCA) model of the CTV motion and deformation of 15 patients, and we tested the model on the left-out patient. The modeling error was calculated as the amount of the CTV motion-deformation of the left-out-patient that could not be explained by the PCA model. Next, the PCA model was used to construct a PCA target volume (PCA-TV) by accumulating motion-deformations simulated by the model. A PCA planning target volume (PTV) was generated by expanding the PCA-TV by uniform margins. The PCA-PTV was compared with uniform and nonuniform CTV-to-PTV margins. To allow comparison, geometric margins were determined to ensure adequate coverage, and the volume difference between the PTV and the daily CTV (CTV-to-PTV volume) was calculated. RESULTS: The modeling error ranged from 0.9 ± 0.5 to 2.9 ± 2.1 mm, corresponding to a reduction of the CTV motion-deformation between 6% and 60% (average, 23% ± 11%). The reduction correlated with the magnitude of the CTV motion-deformation (P<.001, R=0.66). The PCA-TV and the CTV required 2-mm and 7-mm uniform margins, respectively. The nonuniform CTV-to-PTV margins were 4 mm in the left, right, inferior, superior, and posterior directions and 8 mm in the anterior direction. Compared to uniform and nonuniform CTV-to-PTV margins, the PCA-based PTV significantly decreased (P<.001) the average CTV-to-PTV volume by 128 ± 20 mL (49% ± 4%) and by 35 ± 6 mL (20% ± 3.5%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CTV motion-deformation of a new patient can be explained by a population-based PCA model. A PCA model-generated PTV significantly improved sparing of organs at risk compared to uniform and nonuniform CTV-to-PTV margins.