Cost-effectiveness analysis of (accelerated) pre-operative versus (conventional) post-operative radiotherapy for patients with oral cavity cancer in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Treatment for resectable oral cavity cancer (OCC) often includes combinations of surgery and radiotherapy (RT), but there is no conclusive information on the preferred treatment order. The aim of this study was to assess the costs and cost-effectiveness of two alternative treatment regimens for patients with OCC, reflecting pre- and post-operative RT, from a societal perspective. METHODS: The study used data from the ARTSCAN 2 randomised controlled trial, which compares pre-operative accelerated RT with post-operative conventionally fractionated RT. Two-hundred-forty patients were included in the analysis of treatment outcomes. Direct costs were retrieved from the hospital's economic systems, while indirect costs were obtained from national registries. Cost-effectiveness was assessed and a sensitivity analysis was performed. Overall survival (OS) at 5 years, was used as effect measure in the analysis. RESULTS: Two-hundred-nine patients completed the treatments and had retrievable data on costs. Mean direct costs (inpatient and outpatient care) were € 47,377 for pre-operative RT and € 39,841 for post-operative RT (p = 0.001), while corresponding indirect costs were € 19,854 and € 20,531 (p = 0.89). The incremental cost, i.e., the mean difference in total cost between the treatment regimens, was € 6859 paralleled with a 14-percentage point lower OS-rate at 5 years for pre-operative RT (i.e., 58 vs. 72%). Thus, pre-operative RT was dominated by post-operative RT. CONCLUSIONS: From a societal perspective, post-operative RT for patients with resectable OCC is the dominant strategy compared to pre-operative RT.

Primary tumor volume and prognosis for patients with p16-positive and p16-negative oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma treated with radiation therapy.

BACKGROUND: The prescribed radiation dose to patients with oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is standardized, even if the prognosis for individual patients may differ. Easy-at-hand pre-treatment risk stratification methods are valuable to individualize therapy. In the current study we assessed the prognostic impact of primary tumor volume for p16-positive and p16-negative tumors and in relationship to other prognostic factors for outcome in patients with OPSCC treated with primary radiation therapy (RT). METHODS: Five hundred twenty-three OPSCC patients with p16-status treated with primary RT (68.0 Gy to 73.1 Gy in 7 weeks, or 68.0 Gy in 4.5 weeks), with or without concurrent chemotherapy, within three prospective trials were included in the study. Local failure (LF), progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) in relationship to the size of the primary gross tumor volume (GTV-T) and other prognostic factors were investigated. Efficiency of intensified RT (RT with total dose 73.1 Gy or given within 4.5 weeks) was analyzed in relationship to tumor volume. RESULTS: The volume of GTV-T and p16-status were found to be the strongest prognostic markers for LF, PFS and OS. For p16-positive tumors, an increase in tumor volume had a significantly higher negative prognostic impact compared with p16-negative tumors. Within a T-classification, patients with a smaller tumor, compared with a larger tumor, had a better prognosis. The importance of tumor volume remained after adjusting for nodal status, age, performance status, smoking status, sex, and hemoglobin-level. The adjusted hazard ratio for OS per cm3 increase in tumor volume was 2.3% (95% CI 0-4.9) for p16-positive and 1.3% (95% 0.3-2.2) for p16-negative. Exploratory analyses suggested that intensified RT could mitigate the negative impact of a large tumor volume. CONCLUSIONS: Outcome for patients with OPSCC treated with RT is largely determined by tumor volume, even when adjusting for other established prognostic factors. Tumor volume is significantly more influential for patients with p16-positive tumors. Patients with large tumor volumes might benefit by intensified RT to improve survival.

Anal cancer in Sweden 2015-2019. Implementation of guidelines, structural changes, national registry and early results.

BACKGROUND: Squamous cell cancer of the anus is an uncommon malignancy, usually caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). Chemoradiotherapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment in localized disease with cure rates of 60-80%. Local failures should be considered for salvage surgery. With the purpose of improving and equalizing the anal cancer care in Sweden, a number of actions were taken between 2015 and 2017. The aim of this study was to describe the implementation of guidelines and organizational changes and to present early results from the first 5 years of the Swedish anal cancer registry (SACR). METHODS: The following were implemented: (1) the first national care program with treatment guidelines, (2) standardized care process, (3) centralization of CRT to four centers and salvage surgery to two centers, (4) weekly national multidisciplinary team meetings where all new cases are discussed, (5) the Swedish anal cancer registry (SACR) was started in 2015. RESULTS: The SACR included 912 patients with a diagnosis of anal cancer from 2015 to 2019, reaching a national coverage of 95%. We could show that guidelines issued in 2017 regarding staging procedures and radiotherapy dose modifications were rapidly implemented. At baseline 52% of patients had lymph node metastases and 9% had distant metastases. Out of all patients in the SACR 89% were treated with curative intent, most of them with CRT, after which 92% achieved a local complete remission and the estimated overall 3-year survival was 85%. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report from the SACR, demonstrating rapid nation-wide implementation of guidelines and apparently good treatment outcome in patients with anal cancer in Sweden. The SACR will hopefully be a valuable source for future research.

Results from a prospective, randomised study on (accelerated) preoperative versus (conventional) postoperative radiotherapy in treatment of patients with resectable squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity - The ARTSCAN 2 study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: An earlier prospective randomised multicentre study (ARTSCAN) in head and neck cancer patients that compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy (CF) with accelerated radiotherapy (AF) was inconclusive. In the subgroup of oral cavity squamous cell cancer (OCSCC) a large absolute, but not statistically significant, difference in local control was seen in favour of AF. This difference was more pronounced in resectable tumours. The finding raised the hypothesis that AF could be beneficial for OCSCC patients. In addition, the longstanding controversy on pre- or postoperative radiotherapy was addressed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with OCSCC, judged to withstand and likely benefit from combined therapy, were recruited. Subjects were randomised to either preoperative AF with 43 fractions given as a concomitant boost with two fractions/day to the tumour bearing volume to a total dose of 68 Gy in 4.5 weeks followed by surgery, or primary surgery with postoperative CF, total dose 60 or 66 Gy in 6-7 weeks. For patients whose tumours had high-risk features, 66 Gy and concomitant cisplatin was prescribed. RESULTS: 250 patients were randomised. Median follow-up was 5 years for locoregional control (LRC) and 9 years for overall survival (OS). There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment arms regarding LRC and OS. LRC at five years was 73% (95% CI, 65-82) in preoperative AF and 78% (95% CI, 70-85) in postoperative CF. Toxicity was more pronounced in preoperative AF. CONCLUSION: This study does not support that AF prior to surgery improves outcome in oral cavity cancer compared with postoperative CF.

Chemotherapy and radiotherapy in locally advanced head and neck cancer: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Randomised, controlled trials and meta-analyses have shown the survival benefit of concomitant chemoradiotherapy or hyperfractionated radiotherapy in the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. However, the relative efficacy of these treatments is unknown. We aimed to determine whether one treatment was superior to the other. METHODS: We did a frequentist network meta-analysis based on individual patient data of meta-analyses evaluating the role of chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC]) and of altered fractionation radiotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH]). Randomised, controlled trials that enrolled patients with non-metastatic head and neck squamous cell cancer between Jan 1, 1980, and Dec 31, 2016, were included. We used a two-step random-effects approach, and the log-rank test, stratified by trial to compare treatments, with locoregional therapy as the reference. Overall survival was the primary endpoint. The global Cochran Q statistic was used to assess homogeneity and consistency and P score to rank treatments (higher scores indicate more effective therapies). FINDINGS: 115 randomised, controlled trials, which enrolled patients between Jan 1, 1980, and April 30, 2012, yielded 154 comparisons (28 978 patients with 19 253 deaths and 20 579 progression events). Treatments were grouped into 16 modalities, for which 35 types of direct comparisons were available. Median follow-up based on all trials was 6·6 years (IQR 5·0-9·4). Hyperfractionated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (HFCRT) was ranked as the best treatment for overall survival (P score 97%; hazard ratio 0·63 [95% CI 0·51-0·77] compared with locoregional therapy). The hazard ratio of HFCRT compared with locoregional therapy with concomitant chemoradiotherapy with platinum-based chemotherapy (CLRTP) was 0·82 (95% CI 0·66-1·01) for overall survival. The superiority of HFCRT was robust to sensitivity analyses. Three other modalities of treatment had a better P score, but not a significantly better HR, for overall survival than CLRTP (P score 78%): induction chemotherapy with taxane, cisplatin, and fluorouracil followed by locoregional therapy (ICTaxPF-LRT; 89%), accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant chemotherapy (82%), and ICTaxPF followed by CLRT (80%). INTERPRETATION: The results of this network meta-analysis suggest that further intensifying chemoradiotherapy, using HFCRT or ICTaxPF-CLRT, could improve outcomes over chemoradiotherapy for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck cancer. FUNDINGS: French Institut National du Cancer, French Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer, and Fondation ARC.

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer (HYPO-RT-PC): patient-reported quality-of-life outcomes of a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The HYPO-RT-PC trial compared conventionally fractionated radiotherapy with ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy in patients with localised prostate cancer. Ultra-hypofractionation was non-inferior to conventional fractionation regarding 5-year failure-free survival and toxicity. We aimed to assess whether patient-reported quality of life (QOL) differs between conventional fractionation and ultra-hypofractionation up to 6 years after treatment in the HYPO-RT-PC trial. METHODS: HYPO-RT-PC is a multicentre, open-label, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial done in 12 centres (seven university hospitals and five county hospitals) in Sweden and Denmark. Inclusion criteria were histologically verified intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer (defined as T1c-T3a with one or two of the following risk factors: stage T3a; Gleason score ≥7; and prostate-specific antigen 10-20 ng/mL with no evidence of lymph node involvement or distant metastases), age up to 75 years, and WHO performance status 0-2. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to conventional fractionation (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks) or ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) via a minimisation algorithm with stratification by trial centre, T-stage, Gleason score, and prostate-specific antigen. QOL was measured using the validated Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, the end of radiotherapy, months 3, 6, 12, and 24 after radiotherapy, every other year thereafter up to 10 years, and at 15 years. The primary endpoint (failure-free survival) has been reported elsewhere. Here we report QOL, a secondary endpoint analysed in the per-protocol population, up to 6 years after radiotherapy. The HYPO-RT-PC trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were enrolled and 1180 were randomly assigned (conventional fractionation n=591, ultra-hypofractionation n=589); 1165 patients (conventional fractionation n=582, ultra-hypofractionation n=583) were included in this QOL analysis. 158 (71%) of 223 patients in the conventional fractionation group and 146 (66%) of 220 in the ultra-hypofractionation group completed questionnaires at 6 years. The median follow-up was 48 months (IQR 25-72). In seven of ten bowel symptoms or problems the proportion of patients with clinically relevant deteriorations at the end of radiotherapy was significantly higher in the ultra-hypofractionation group than in the conventional fractionation group (stool frequency [p<0·0001], rush to toilet [p=0·0013], flatulence [p=0·0013], bowel cramp [p<0·0001], mucus [p=0·0014], blood in stool [p<0·0001], and limitation in daily activity [p=0·0014]). There were no statistically significant differences in the proportions of patients with clinically relevant acute urinary symptoms or problems (total 14 items) and sexual functioning between the two treatment groups at end of radiotherapy. Thereafter, there were no clinically relevant differences in urinary, bowel, or sexual functioning between the groups. At the 6-year follow-up there was no difference in the incidence of clinically relevant deterioration between the groups for overall urinary bother (43 [33%] of 132 for conventional fractionation vs 33 [28%] of 120 for ultra-hypofractionation; mean difference 5·1% [95% CI -4·4 to 14·6]; p=0·38), overall bowel bother (43 [33%] of 129 vs 34 [28%] of 123; 5·7% [-3·8 to 15·2]; p=0·33), overall sexual bother (75 [60%] of 126 vs 59 [50%] of 117; 9·1% [-1·4 to 19·6]; p=0·15), or global health/QOL (56 [42%] of 134 vs 46 [37%] of 125; 5·0% [-5·0 to 15·0]; p=0·41). INTERPRETATION: Although acute toxicity was higher for ultra-hypofractionation than conventional fractionation, this long-term patient-reported QOL analysis shows that ultra-hypofractionation was as well tolerated as conventional fractionation up to 6 years after completion of treatment. These findings support the use of ultra-hypofractionation radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.

ARTSCAN III: A Randomized Phase III Study Comparing Chemoradiotherapy With Cisplatin Versus Cetuximab in Patients With Locoregionally Advanced Head and Neck Squamous Cell Cancer.

PURPOSE: We performed an open-label randomized controlled phase III study comparing treatment outcome and toxicity between radiotherapy (RT) with concomitant cisplatin versus concomitant cetuximab in patients with locoregionally advanced head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC; stage III-IV according to the Union for International Cancer Control TNM classification, 7th edition). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either intravenous cetuximab 400 mg/m2 1 week before start of RT followed by 250 mg/m2/wk, or weekly intravenous cisplatin 40 mg/m2, during RT. RT was conventionally fractionated. Patients with T3-T4 tumors underwent a second random assignment 1:1 between standard RT dose 68.0 Gy to the primary tumor or dose escalation to 73.1 Gy. Primary end point was overall survival (OS) evaluated using adjusted Cox regression analysis. Secondary end points were locoregional control, local control with dose-escalated RT, pattern of failure, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Study inclusion was prematurely closed after an unplanned interim analysis when 298 patients had been randomly assigned. At 3 years, OS was 88% (95% CI, 83% to 94%) and 78% (95% CI, 71% to 85%) in the cisplatin and cetuximab groups, respectively (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.63; 95% CI, 0.93 to 2.86; P = .086). The cumulative incidence of locoregional failures at 3 years was 23% (95% CI, 16% to 31%) compared with 9% (95% CI, 4% to 14%) in the cetuximab versus the cisplatin group (Gray's test P = .0036). The cumulative incidence of distant failures did not differ between the treatment groups. Dose escalation in T3-T4 tumors did not increase local control. CONCLUSION: Cetuximab is inferior to cisplatin regarding locoregional control for concomitant treatment with RT in patients with locoregionally advanced HNSCC. Additional studies are needed to identify possible subgroups that still may benefit from concomitant cetuximab treatment.

Predictive classifier for intensive treatment of head and neck cancer.

BACKGROUND: This study was designed to test the hypothesis that the effectiveness of intensive treatment for locoregionally advanced head and neck cancer (LAHNC) depends on the proportion of patients' overall event risk attributable to cancer. METHODS: This study analyzed 22,339 patients with LAHNC treated in 81 randomized trials testing altered fractionation (AFX; Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Squamous Cell Carcinomas of Head and Neck [MARCH] data set) or chemotherapy (Meta-Analysis of Chemotherapy in Head and Neck Cancer [MACH-NC] data set). Generalized competing event regression was applied to the control arms in MARCH, and patients were stratified by tertile according to the ω score, which quantified the relative hazard for cancer versus competing events. The classifier was externally validated on the MACH-NC data set. The study tested for interactions between the ω score and treatment effects on overall survival (OS). RESULTS: Factors associated with a higher ω score were a younger age, a better performance status, an oral cavity site, higher T and N categories, and a p16-negative/unknown status. The effect of AFX on OS was greater in patients with high ω scores (hazard ratio [HR], 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-0.99) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.98) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.90-1.05; P for interaction = .086). The effect of chemotherapy on OS was significantly greater in patients with high ω scores (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.75-0.88) and medium ω scores (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93) versus low ω scores (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.86-1.08; P for interaction = .011). CONCLUSIONS: LAHNC patients with a higher risk of cancer progression relative to competing mortality, as reflected by a higher ω score, selectively benefit from more intensive treatment.

What matters to you? - Free-text comments in a questionnaire from patients undergoing radiotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Most cancer patients undergo external radiotherapy (RT) at some stage during their treatment trajectory and RT is often associated with unfamiliar procedures in a highly technical environment. The purpose of this study was to explore how patients experience RT and the related processes, as described in free-text comments in a large Swedish survey with questionnaires including items on psychosocial climate and treatment environment. METHODS: The data consisted of free-text comments from one open-ended question: "Is there anything else you want us to know" and were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: Of 825 returned questionnaires, 261 contained free-text comments from patients (32%). The hand-written, free-text comments reflected the patients' experience of the RT process and were abstracted into the four major categories with sub-categories: experiencing the high-tech RT environment, understanding the RT procedures and side effects, dealing with daily life during RT, and the nurses' role and performance. The categories reflect the patients' experiences and emphasize how important it is to evaluate what really matters to the patients when changing procedures, practices, and how to minimize disturbances in the patients' daily lives. CONCLUSION: The main conclusions from this study are that the involvement of patients in choosing daily appointment times, providing good information during the RT process to make the patients feel safe, experience and attitude of the staff and respect for the patient's autonomy are highly ranked values for patients. An implementation of person-centred care may help relieve many of these problems.

Altered fractionation diminishes importance of tumor volume in oropharyngeal cancer: Subgroup analysis of ARTSCAN-trial.

BACKGROUND: A large tumor volume negatively impacts the outcome of radiation therapy (RT). Altered fractionation (AF) can improve local control (LC) compared with conventional fractionation (CF). The aim of the present study was to investigate if response to AF differs with tumor volume in oropharyngeal cancer. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty four patients with oropharyngeal cancer treated in a randomized, phase III trial comparing CF (2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk, 7 weeks, total dose 68 Gy) to AF (1.1 Gy + 2 Gy/d, 5 d/wk, 4.5 weeks, total dose 68 Gy) were analyzed. RESULTS: Tumor volume had less impact on LC for patients treated with AF. There was an interaction between tumor volume and fractionation schedule (P = .039). This differential response was in favor of CF for small tumors and of AF for large tumors. CONCLUSION: AF diminishes the importance of tumor volume for local tumor control in oropharyngeal cancer.

Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation. METHODS: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 non-inferiority trial done in 12 centres in Sweden and Denmark, we recruited men up to 75 years of age with intermediate-to-high-risk prostate cancer and a WHO performance status between 0 and 2. Patients were randomly assigned to ultra-hypofractionation (42·7 Gy in seven fractions, 3 days per week for 2·5 weeks) or conventional fractionated radiotherapy (78·0 Gy in 39 fractions, 5 days per week for 8 weeks). No androgen deprivation therapy was allowed. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure, analysed in the per-protocol population. The prespecified non-inferiority margin was 4% at 5 years, corresponding to a critical hazard ratio (HR) limit of 1·338. Physician-recorded toxicity was measured according to the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) morbidity scale and patient-reported outcome measurements with the Prostate Cancer Symptom Scale (PCSS) questionnaire. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN45905321. FINDINGS: Between July 1, 2005, and Nov 4, 2015, 1200 patients were randomly assigned to conventional fractionation (n=602) or ultra-hypofractionation (n=598), of whom 1180 (591 conventional fractionation and 589 ultra-hypofractionation) constituted the per-protocol population. 1054 (89%) participants were intermediate risk and 126 (11%) were high risk. Median follow-up time was 5·0 years (IQR 3·1-7·0). The estimated failure-free survival at 5 years was 84% (95% CI 80-87) in both treatment groups, with an adjusted HR of 1·002 (95% CI 0·758-1·325; log-rank p=0·99). There was weak evidence of an increased frequency of acute physician-reported RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group at end of radiotherapy (158 [28%] of 569 patients vs 132 [23%] of 578 patients; p=0·057). There were no significant differences in grade 2 or worse urinary or bowel late toxicity between the two treatment groups at any point after radiotherapy, except for an increase in urinary toxicity in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared to the conventional fractionation group at 1-year follow-up (32 [6%] of 528 patients vs 13 [2%] of 529 patients; (p=0·0037). We observed no differences between groups in frequencies at 5 years of RTOG grade 2 or worse urinary toxicity (11 [5%] of 243 patients for the ultra-hypofractionation group vs 12 [5%] of 249 for the conventional fractionation group; p=1·00) and bowel toxicity (three [1%] of 244 patients vs nine [4%] of 249 patients; p=0·14). Patient-reported outcomes revealed significantly higher levels of acute urinary and bowel symptoms in the ultra-hypofractionation group compared with the conventional fractionation group but no significant increases in late symptoms were found, except for increased urinary symptoms at 1-year follow-up, consistent with the physician-evaluated toxicity. INTERPRETATION: Ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy is non-inferior to conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for intermediate-to-high risk prostate cancer regarding failure-free survival. Early side-effects are more pronounced with ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation whereas late toxicity is similar in both treatment groups. The results support the use of ultra-hypofractionation for radiotherapy of prostate cancer. FUNDING: The Nordic Cancer Union, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Swedish Research Council.

Dosimetric Impact of MRI Distortions: A Study on Head and Neck Cancers.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging (MRI) geometric distortions on head and neck radiation therapy treatment planning (RTP) for an MRI-only RTP. We also assessed the potential benefits of patient-specific shimming to reduce the magnitude of MR distortions for a 3-T scanner. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using an in-house Matlab algorithm, shimming within entire imaging volumes and user-defined regions of interest were simulated. We deformed 21 patient computed tomography (CT) images with MR distortion fields (gradient nonlinearity and patient-induced susceptibility effects) to create distorted CT (dCT) images using bandwidths of 122 and 488 Hz/mm at 3 T. Field parameters from volumetric modulated arc therapy plans initially optimized on dCT data sets were transferred to CT data to compute a new plan. Both plans were compared to determine the impact of distortions on dose distributions. RESULTS: Shimming across entire patient volumes decreased the percentage of voxels with distortions of more than 2 mm from 15.4% to 2.0%. Using the user-defined region of interest (ROI) shimming strategy, (here the Planning target volume (PTV) was the chosen ROI volume) led to increased geometric for volumes outside the PTV, as such voxels within the spinal cord with geometric shifts above 2 mm increased from 11.5% to 32.3%. The worst phantom-measured residual system distortions after 3-dimensional gradient nonlinearity correction within a radial distance of 200 mm from the isocenter was 2.17 mm. For all patients, voxels with distortion shifts of more than 2 mm resulting from patient-induced susceptibility effects were 15.4% and 0.0% using bandwidths of 122 Hz/mm and 488 Hz/mm at 3 T. Dose differences between dCT and CT treatment plans in D50 at the planning target volume were 0.4% ± 0.6% and 0.3% ± 0.5% at 122 and 488 Hz/mm, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall effect of MRI geometric distortions on data used for RTP was minimal. Shimming over entire imaging volumes decreased distortions, but user-defined subvolume shimming introduced significant errors in nearby organs and should probably be avoided.

Initial experience with introducing national guidelines for CT- and MRI-based delineation of organs at risk in radiotherapy.

A fundamental problem in radiotherapy is the variation of organ at risk (OAR) volumes. Here we present our initial experience in engaging a large Radiation Oncology (RO) community to agree on national guidelines for OAR delineations. Our project builds on associated standardization initiatives and invites professionals from all radiotherapy departments nationwide. Presently, one guideline (rectum) has successfully been agreed on by a majority vote. Reaching out to all relevant parties in a timely manner and motivating funding agencies to support the work represented early challenges. Population-based data and a scalable methodological approach are major strengths of the proposed strategy.

Basic concepts and applications of functional magnetic resonance imaging for radiotherapy of prostate cancer.

Recently, the interest to integrate magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in radiotherapy for prostate cancer has increased considerably. MRI can contribute in all steps of the radiotherapy workflow from diagnosis, staging, and target definition to treatment follow-up. Of particular interest is the ability of MRI to provide a wide range of functional measures. The complexity of MRI as an imaging modality combined with the growing interest of the application to prostate cancer radiotherapy, emphasize the need for dedicated education within the radiation oncology community. In this context, an overview of the most common as well as a few upcoming functional MR imaging techniques is presented: the basic methodology and measurement is described, the link between the functional measures and the underlying biology is established, and finally relevant applications of functional MRI useful for prostate cancer radiotherapy are given.

Technical Note: Adapting a GE SIGNA PET/MR scanner for radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: Simultaneous collection of PET and MR data for radiotherapy purposes are useful for, for example, target definition and dose escalations. However, a prerequisite for using PET/MR in the radiotherapy workflow is the ability to image the patient in treatment position. The aim of this work was to adapt a GE SIGNA PET/MR scanner to image patients for radiotherapy treatment planning and evaluate the impact on signal-to-noise (SNR) of the MR images, and the accuracy of the PET attenuation correction. METHOD: A flat tabletop and a coil holder were developed to image patients in the treatment position, avoid patient contour deformation, and facilitate attenuation correction of flex coils. Attenuation corrections for the developed hardware and an anterior array flex coil were also measured and implemented to the PET/MR system to minimize PET quantitation errors. The reduction of SNR in the MR images due to the added distance between the coils and the patient was evaluated using a large homogenous saline-doped water phantom, and the activity quantitation errors in PET imaging were evaluated with and without the developed attenuation corrections. RESULT: We showed that the activity quantitation errors in PET imaging were within ±5% when correcting for attenuation of the flat tabletop, coil holder, and flex coil. The SNR of the MRI images were reduced to 74% using the tabletop, and 66% using the tabletop and coil holders. CONCLUSION: We present a tabletop and coil holder for an anterior array coil to be used with a GE SIGNA PET/MR scanner, for scanning patients in the radiotherapy work flow. Implementing attenuation correction of the added hardware from the radiotherapy setup leads to acceptable PET image quantitation. The drop in SNR in MR images may require adjustment of the imaging protocols.

MR and CT data with multiobserver delineations of organs in the pelvic area-Part of the Gold Atlas project.

PURPOSE: We describe a public dataset with MR and CT images of patients performed in the same position with both multiobserver and expert consensus delineations of relevant organs in the male pelvic region. The purpose was to provide means for training and validation of segmentation algorithms and methods to convert MR to CT like data, i.e., so called synthetic CT (sCT). ACQUISITION AND VALIDATION METHODS: T1- and T2-weighted MR images as well as CT data were collected for 19 patients at three different departments. Five experts delineated nine organs for each patient based on the T2-weighted MR images. An automatic method was used to fuse the delineations. Starting from each fused delineation, a consensus delineation was agreed upon by the five experts for each organ and patient. Segmentation overlap between user delineations with respect to the consensus delineations was measured to describe the spread of the collected data. Finally, an open-source software was used to create deformation vector fields describing the relation between MR and CT images to further increase the usability of the dataset. DATA FORMAT AND USAGE NOTES: The dataset has been made publically available to be used for academic purposes, and can be accessed from https://zenodo.org/record/583096. POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS: The dataset provides a useful source for training and validation of segmentation algorithms as well as methods to convert MR to CT-like data (sCT). To give some examples: The T2-weighted MR images with their consensus delineations can directly be used as a template in an existing atlas-based segmentation engine; the expert delineations are useful to validate the performance of a segmentation algorithm as they provide a way to measure variability among users which can be compared with the result of an automatic segmentation; and the pairwise deformably registered MR and CT images can be a source for an atlas-based sCT algorithm or for validation of sCT algorithm.

Prognostic impact of HPV-associated p16-expression and smoking status on outcomes following radiotherapy for oropharyngeal cancer: The MARCH-HPV project.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Evaluate the prognostic and predictive impact of HPV-associated p16-expression and assess the combined prognostic impact of p16 and smoking on altered fractionated radiotherapy (AFRT) for oropharyngeal cancer (OPC) within the frames of the update of the Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with OPC, known tumor p16-status and smoking history were identified from the MARCH update, resulting in a dataset of 815 patients from four randomized trials (RTOG9003, DAHANCA6&7, RTOG0129, ARTSCAN). Analysis was performed using a Cox model stratified by trial and adjusted on gender, age, T-stage, N-stage, type of radiotherapy fractionation, p16, smoking. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS: In total, 465 patients (57%) had p16-positive tumors and 350 (43%) p16-negative. Compared to p16-negative, p16-positive patients had significantly better PFS (HR = 0.42 [95% CI: 0.34-0.51], 28.9% absolute increase at 10 years) and OS (HR = 0.40 [0.32-0.49], 32.1% absolute increase at 10 years). No interaction between p16-status and fractionation schedule was detected. Smoking negatively impacted outcome; in the p16-positive subgroup, never smokers had significantly better PFS than former/current smokers (HR = 0.49 [0.33-0.75], 24.2% survival benefit at 10 years). CONCLUSIONS: No predictive impact of p16-status on response to AFRT could be detected but the strong prognostic impact of p16-status was confirmed and especially p16-positive never smoking patients have superior outcome after RT.

Role of radiotherapy fractionation in head and neck cancers (MARCH): an updated meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The Meta-Analysis of Radiotherapy in squamous cell Carcinomas of Head and neck (MARCH) showed that altered fractionation radiotherapy is associated with improved overall and progression-free survival compared with conventional radiotherapy, with hyperfractionated radiotherapy showing the greatest benefit. This update aims to confirm and explain the superiority of hyperfractionated radiotherapy over other altered fractionation radiotherapy regimens and to assess the benefit of altered fractionation within the context of concomitant chemotherapy with the inclusion of new trials. METHODS: For this updated meta-analysis, we searched bibliography databases, trials registries, and meeting proceedings for published or unpublished randomised trials done between Jan 1, 2009, and July 15, 2015, comparing primary or postoperative conventional fractionation radiotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy (comparison 1) or conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone (comparison 2). Eligible trials had to start randomisation on or after Jan 1, 1970, and completed accrual before Dec 31, 2010; had to have been randomised in a way that precluded prior knowledge of treatment assignment; and had to include patients with non-metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, oropharynx, hypopharynx, or larynx undergoing first-line curative treatment. Trials including a non-conventional radiotherapy control group, investigating hypofractionated radiotherapy, or including mostly nasopharyngeal carcinomas were excluded. Trials were grouped in three types of altered fractionation: hyperfractionated, moderately accelerated, and very accelerated. Individual patient data were collected and combined with a fixed-effects model based on the intention-to-treat principle. The primary endpoint was overall survival. FINDINGS: Comparison 1 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy vs altered fractionation radiotherapy) included 33 trials and 11 423 patients. Altered fractionation radiotherapy was associated with a significant benefit on overall survival (hazard ratio [HR] 0·94, 95% CI 0·90-0·98; p=0·0033), with an absolute difference at 5 years of 3·1% (95% CI 1·3-4·9) and at 10 years of 1·2% (-0·8 to 3·2). We found a significant interaction (p=0·051) between type of fractionation and treatment effect, the overall survival benefit being restricted to the hyperfractionated group (HR 0·83, 0·74-0·92), with absolute differences at 5 years of 8·1% (3·4 to 12·8) and at 10 years of 3·9% (-0·6 to 8·4). Comparison 2 (conventional fractionation radiotherapy plus concomitant chemotherapy versus altered fractionation radiotherapy alone) included five trials and 986 patients. Overall survival was significantly worse with altered fractionation radiotherapy compared with concomitant chemoradiotherapy (HR 1·22, 1·05-1·42; p=0·0098), with absolute differences at 5 years of -5·8% (-11·9 to 0·3) and at 10 years of -5·1% (-13·0 to 2·8). INTERPRETATION: This update confirms, with more patients and a longer follow-up than the first version of MARCH, that hyperfractionated radiotherapy is, along with concomitant chemoradiotherapy, a standard of care for the treatment of locally advanced head and neck squamous cell cancers. The comparison between hyperfractionated radiotherapy and concomitant chemoradiotherapy remains to be specifically tested. FUNDING: Institut National du Cancer; and Ligue Nationale Contre le Cancer.

MR-OPERA: A Multicenter/Multivendor Validation of Magnetic Resonance Imaging-Only Prostate Treatment Planning Using Synthetic Computed Tomography Images.

PURPOSE: To validate the dosimetric accuracy and clinical robustness of a commercially available software for magnetic resonance (MR) to synthetic computed tomography (sCT) conversion, in an MR imaging-only workflow for 170 prostate cancer patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The 4 participating centers had MriPlanner (Spectronic Medical), an atlas-based sCT generation software, installed as a cloud-based service. A T2-weighted MR sequence, covering the body contour, was added to the clinical protocol. The MR images were sent from the MR scanner workstation to the MriPlanner platform. The sCT was automatically returned to the treatment planning system. Four MR scanners and 2 magnetic field strengths were included in the study. For each patient, a CT-treatment plan was created and approved according to clinical practice. The sCT was rigidly registered to the CT, and the clinical treatment plan was recalculated on the sCT. The dose distributions from the CT plan and the sCT plan were compared according to a set of dose-volume histogram parameters and gamma evaluation. Treatment techniques included volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, and conventional treatment using 2 treatment planning systems and different dose calculation algorithms. RESULTS: The overall (multicenter/multivendor) mean dose differences between sCT and CT dose distributions were below 0.3% for all evaluated organs and targets. Gamma evaluation showed a mean pass rate of 99.12% (0.63%, 1 SD) in the complete body volume and 99.97% (0.13%, 1 SD) in the planning target volume using a 2%/2-mm global gamma criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Results of the study show that the sCT conversion method can be used clinically, with minimal differences between sCT and CT dose distributions for target and relevant organs at risk. The small differences seen are consistent between centers, indicating that an MR imaging-only workflow using MriPlanner is robust for a variety of field strengths, vendors, and treatment techniques.

Development and psychometric testing of an instrument to measure the patient's experience of external radiotherapy: The Radiotherapy Experience Questionnaire (RTEQ).

BACKGROUND: The patient's perception of external radiotherapy (RT) procedures and equipment is important to evaluate as a complement to endpoints such as treatment outcome and reproducibility. There is a lack of a proper, psychometrically robust instrument to evaluate the patient's comfort and experience of the external RT procedure. Hence, this study aimed to develop and test an instrument to measure the patient's experience during external RT. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A preliminary 34-item questionnaire was generated from research literature, expert consultations and patient interviews, and it was distributed to patients (n = 825) at 8 RT units in Sweden. The answers were subjected to item analysis and reduction by using exploratory factor analysis. The reliability of the final questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha. Mean scale scores were compared across gender, length of RT and treatment area. RESULTS: Most items were highly skewed towards positive responses. Scree plot analyses of the 34-item correlation matrix identified six underlying themes explaining 68% of the total variance. After item reduction, the 6 themes explained 73% of the variance in a 23-item questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha was satisfactory for all themes (between 0.79 and 0.9). Significant differences between treatment areas were found for two scales: situational unease and situational repose. CONCLUSION: The RT Experience Questionnaire is a tentatively valid and reliable instrument to measure how patients experience the external RT session process and the environment in the treatment room.