Plan robustness evaluation strategies in whole-pelvic proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer patients within a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Inter-fractional anatomical changes challenge robust delivery of whole-pelvic proton therapy for high-risk prostate cancer. Pre-treatment robust evaluation (PRE) takes uncertainties in isocenter shifts and distal beam edge in treatment plans into account. Using weekly control computed tomography scans (cCTs), the aim of this study was to evaluate the PRE strategy by comparing to an off-line during-treatment robust evaluation (DRE) while also assessing plan robustness with respect to protocol planning constraints. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Treatment plans and cCTs from ten patients included in the pilot phase of the PROstate PROTON Trial 1 were analysed. Treatment planning followed protocol guidelines with 78 Gy to the primary clinical target volume (CTVp) and 56 Gy to the elective target (CTVe) in 39 fractions. Recalculations of the treatment plans were performed for a total of 64 cCTs and dose/volume measures corresponding to clinical constraints were evaluated for this DRE against the simulated scenario interval from the PRE. RESULTS: Of the 64 cCTs, 59 showed DRE CTVp measures within the robustness range from the PRE; this was also the case for 39 of the cCTs for the CTVe measures. However, DRE CTVe coverage was still within constraints for 57 of the 64 cCTs. DRE dose/volume measures for CTVp fulfilled target coverage constraints in 59 of 64 cCTs. All DRE measures for the rectum, bladder, and bowel were inside the PRE range in 63, 39, and 31 cCTs, respectively. CONCLUSION: The PRE strategy predicted the DRE scenarios for CTVp and rectum. CTVe, bladder, and bowel showed more complex anatomical variations than simulated by the PRE isocenter shift. Both original and recalculated nominal treatment plans showed robust treatment delivery in terms of target coverage.

Using immunotherapy to enhance the response of a C3H mammary carcinoma to proton radiation.

BACKGROUND: The benefit of combining immunotherapy with photon irradiation has been shown pre-clinically and clinically. This current pre-clinical study was designed to investigate the anti-tumour action of combining immunotherapy with protons. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male CDF1 mice, with a C3H mammary carcinoma inoculated on the right rear foot, were locally irradiated with single radiation doses when tumours reached 200mm3. Radiation was delivered with an 83-107MeV pencil scanning proton beam in the centre of a 3 cm spread out Bragg peak. Following irradiation (day 0), mice were injected intraperitoneal with anti-CTLA-4, anti-PD-1, or anti-PD-L1 (10 mg/kg) twice weekly for two weeks. Endpoints were tumour growth time (TGT3; time to reach 3 times treatment volume) or local tumour control (percent of mice showing tumour control at 90 days). A Student's T-test (tumour growth) or Chi-squared test (tumour control) were used for statistical analysis; significance levels of p < 0.05. RESULTS: Untreated tumours had a mean (± 1 S.E.) TGT3 of 4.6 days (± 0.4). None of the checkpoint inhibitors changed this TGT3. A linear increase in TGT3 was seen with increasing radiation doses (5-20 Gy), reaching 17.2 days (± 0.7) with 20 Gy. Anti-CTLA-4 had no effect on radiation doses up to 15 Gy, but significantly enhanced 20 Gy; the TGT3 being 23.0 days (± 1.3). Higher radiation doses (35-60 Gy) were investigated using a tumour control assay. Logit analysis of the dose response curve, resulted in a TCD50 value (radiation dose causing 50% tumour control; with 95% confidence intervals) of 48 Gy (44-53) for radiation only. This significantly decreased to 43 Gy (38-49) when mice were treated with anti-CTLA-4. Neither anti-PD-1 nor anti-PD-L1 significantly affected tumour control. CONCLUSION: Checkpoint inhibitors enhanced the response of this C3H mammary carcinoma to proton irradiation. However, this enhancement depended on the checkpoint inhibitor and radiation dose.

Dose comparison of robustly optimized intensity modulated proton therapy (IMPT) vs IMRT and VMAT photon plans for testicular seminoma.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stage II seminoma have traditionally been treated with photons to the retroperitoneal and iliac space, which leads to a substantial dose bath to abdominal and pelvic organs at risk (OAR). As these patients are young and with excellent prognosis, reducing dose to OAR and thereby the risk of secondary cancer is of utmost importance. We compared IMPT to opposing IMRT fields and VMAT, assessing dose to OAR and both overall and organ-specific secondary cancer risk. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A comparative treatment planning study was conducted on planning CT-scans from ten patients with stage II seminoma, treated with photons to a 'dog-leg' field with doses ranging from 20 to 25 Gy and a 10 Gy sequential boost to the metastatic lymph node(s). Photon plans were either 3-4 field IMRT (Eclipse) or 1-2 arc VMAT (Pinnacle). Proton plans used robust (5 mm; 3.5%) IMPT (Eclipse), multi field optimization with 3 posterior fields supplemented by 2 anterior fields at the level of the iliac vessels. Thirty plans were generated. Mean doses to OARs were compared for IMRT vs IMPT and VMAT vs IMPT. The risk of secondary cancer was calculated according to the model described by Schneider, using excess absolute risk (EAR, per 10,000 persons per year) for body outline, stomach, duodenum, pancreas, bowel, bladder and spinal cord. RESULTS: Mean doses to all OARs were significantly lower with IMPT except similar kidney (IMRT) and spinal cord (VMAT) doses. The relative EAR for body outline was 0.59 for IMPT/IMRT (p < .05) and 0.33 for IMPT/VMAT (p < .05). Organ specific secondary cancer risk was also lower for IMPT except for pancreas and duodenum. CONCLUSION: Proton therapy reduced radiation dose to OAR compared to both IMRT and VMAT plans, and potentially reduce the risk of secondary cancer both overall and for most OAR.

European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer consensus on re-irradiation: definition, reporting, and clinical decision making.

Re-irradiation can be considered for local recurrence or new tumours adjacent to a previously irradiated site to achieve durable local control for patients with cancer who have otherwise few therapeutic options. With the use of new radiotherapy techniques, which allow for conformal treatment plans, image guidance, and short fractionation schemes, the use of re-irradiation for different sites is increasing in clinical settings. Yet, prospective evidence on re-irradiation is scarce and our understanding of the underlying radiobiology is poor. Our consensus on re-irradiation aims to assist in re-irradiation decision making, and to standardise the classification of different forms of re-irradiation and reporting. The consensus has been endorsed by the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. The use of this classification in daily clinical practice and research will facilitate accurate understanding of the clinical implications of re-irradiation and allow for cross-study comparisons. Data gathered in a uniform manner could be used in the future to make recommendations for re-irradiation on the basis of clinical evidence. The consensus document is based on an adapted Delphi process and a systematic review of the literature was done according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA).

A phase I/II study of acute and late physician assessed and patient-reported morbidity following whole pelvic radiation in high-risk prostate cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess acute and late morbidity measured by the physician and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in high-risk prostate cancer (PC) patients receiving whole pelvic intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) in the setting of a national clinical trial. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 88 patients with adenocarcinoma of the prostate and high-risk parameters were enrolled from 2011 to 2013. All patients received 78 Gy in 39 fractions of IMRT delivering simultaneous 78 Gy to the prostate and 56 Gy to the seminal vesicles and lymph nodes. Physician-reported morbidity was assessed by CTCAE v.4.0. PROs were registered for gastro-intestinal (GI) by the RT-ARD score, genito-urinary (GU) by DAN-PSS, sexual and hormonal by EPIC-26, and quality of life (QoL) by EORTC QLQ-C30. RESULTS: Median follow-up (FU) time was 4.6 years. No persistent late CTCAE grade 3+ morbidity was observed. Prevalence of CTCAE grade 2+ GI morbidities varied from 0 to 6% at baseline throughout FU time, except for diarrhea, which was reported in 19% of the patients post-RT. PROs revealed increased GI morbidity (≥1 monthly episode) for "rectal urgency", "use of pads", "incomplete evacuation", "mucus in stool" and "bowel function impact on QoL" all remained significantly different (p < .05) at 60 months compared to baseline. CTCAE grade 2+ GU and sexual morbidity were unchanged. GU PROs on obstructive and irritative GU items (≥daily episode) increased during RT and normalized at 24 months. No clinically significant differences were found in sexual, hormonal, and QoL scores compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: Whole pelvic RT resulted in a mild to the moderate burden of late GI morbidities demonstrated by a relatively high prevalence of PROs. Whereas, physician-assessed morbidity revealed a low prevalence of late GI morbidity scores. This emphasizes the importance of using both PROs and physician-reported scoring scales when reporting late morbidity in clinical trials.

Proton therapy for early breast cancer patients in the DBCG proton trial: planning, adaptation, and clinical experience from the first 43 patients.

BACKGROUND: The Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) Proton Trial randomizes breast cancer patients selected on high mean heart dose (MHD) or high lung dose (V20Gy/V17Gy) in the photon plan between photon and proton therapy. This study presents the proton plans and adaptation strategy for the first 43 breast cancer patients treated with protons in Denmark. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty-four proton plans (one patient with bilateral cancer) were included; 2 local and 42 loco-regional including internal mammary nodes (IMN). Nineteen patients had a mastectomy and 25 a lumpectomy. The prescribed dose was either 50 Gy in 25 fractions (n = 30) or 40 Gy in 15 fractions (n = 14) wherefrom five received simultaneous integrated boost to the tumor bed. Using 2-3 en face proton fields, single-field optimization, robust optimization and a 5 cm range shifter ensured robustness towards breathing motion, setup- and range uncertainties. An anatomical evaluation was performed by evaluating the dose after adding/removing 3 mm and 5 mm tissue to/from the body-outline and used to define treatment tolerances for anatomical changes. RESULTS: The nominal and robust criteria were met for all patients except two. The median MHD was 1.5 Gy (0.5-3.4 Gy, 50 Gy) and 1.1 Gy (0.0-1.5 Gy, 40 Gy). The anatomical evaluations showed how 5 mm shrinkage approximately doubled the MHD while 5 mm swelling reduced target coverage of the IMN below constraints. Ensuring 3-5 mm robustness toward swelling was prioritized but not always achieved by robust optimization alone emphasizing the need for a distal margin. Twenty-eight patients received plan adaptation, eight patients received two, and one received five. CONCLUSION: This proton planning strategy ensured robust treatment plans within a pre-defined level of acceptable anatomical changes that fulfilled the planning criteria for most of the patients and ensured low MHD.

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.

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.

Isotoxic dose prescription level strategies for stereotactic liver radiotherapy: the price of dose uniformity.

Introduction: To find the optimal dose prescription strategy for liver SBRT, this study investigated the tradeoffs between achievable target dose and healthy liver dose for a range of isotoxic uniform and non-uniform prescription level strategies.Material and methods: Nine patients received ten liver SBRT courses with intrafraction motion monitoring during treatment. After treatment, five VMAT treatment plans were made for each treatment course. The PTV margin was 5 mm (left-right, anterior-posterior) and 10 mm (cranio-caudal). All plans had a mean CTV dose of 56.25 Gy in three fractions, while the PTV was covered by 50%, 67%, 67 s% (steep dose gradient outside CTV), 80%, and 95% of this dose, respectively. The 50%, 67 s%, 80%, and 95% plans were then renormalized to be isotoxic with the standard 67% plan according to a Lyman-Kutcher-Burman normal tissue complication probability model for radiation induced liver disease. The CTV D98 and mean dose of the iso-toxic plans were calculated both without and with the observed intrafraction motion, using a validated method for motion-including dose reconstruction.Results: Under isotoxic conditions, the average [range] mean CTV dose per fraction decreased gradually from 21.2 [20.5-22.7] Gy to 15.5 [15.0-16.6] Gy and the D98 dose per fraction decreased from 20.4 [19.7-21.7] Gy to 15.0 [14.5-15.5] Gy, as the prescription level to the PTV rim was increased from 50% to 95%. With inclusion of target motion the mean CTV dose was 20.5 [16.5-22.5] Gy (50% PTV rim dose) and 15.4 [13.9-16.7] Gy (95% rim dose) while D98 was 17.8 [7.4-20.6] Gy (50% rim dose) and 14.6 [8.8-15.7] Gy (95% rim dose).Conclusion: Requirements of a uniform PTV dose come at the price of excess normal tissue dose. A non-uniform PTV dose allows increased CTV mean dose at the cost of robustness toward intrafraction motion. The increase in planned CTV dose by non-uniform prescription outbalanced the dose deterioration caused by motion.

A Nordic-Baltic perspective on indications for proton therapy with strategies for identification of proper patients.

The beneficial effects of protons are primarily based on reduction of low to intermediate radiation dose bath to normal tissue surrounding the radiotherapy target volume. Despite promise for reduced long-term toxicity, the percentage of cancer patients treated with proton therapy remains low. This is probably caused by technical improvements in planning and delivery of photon therapy, and by high cost, low availability and lack of high-level evidence on proton therapy. A number of proton treatment facilities are under construction or have recently opened; there are now two operational Scandinavian proton centres and two more are under construction, thereby eliminating the availability hurdle. Even with the advantageous physical properties of protons, there is still substantial ambiguity and no established criteria related to which patients should receive proton therapy. This topic was discussed in a session at the Nordic Collaborative Workshop on Particle Therapy, held in Uppsala 14-15 November 2019. This paper resumes the Nordic-Baltic perspective on proton therapy indications and discusses strategies to identify patients for proton therapy. As for indications, neoplastic entities, target volume localisation, size, internal motion, age, second cancer predisposition, dose escalation and treatment plan comparison based on the as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principle or normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) models were discussed. Importantly, the patient selection process should be integrated into the radiotherapy community and emphasis on collaboration across medical specialties, involvement of key decision makers and knowledge dissemination in general are important factors. An active Nordic-Baltic proton therapy organisation would also serve this purpose.

Oligorecurrent prostate cancer limited to lymph nodes: getting our ducks in a row : Nodal oligorecurrent prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Oligorecurrent prostate cancer with exclusive nodal involvement represents a common state of disease, amenable to local therapy. New radio-labeled tracers have enriched the possibility of cancer detection and treatment. In this review, we aim to illustrate the main nuclear medicine diagnostic options and the role of radiotherapy in this setting of patients. METHODS: We performed a PubMed search referring to the PRISMA guidelines to analyze the performance of PSMA- and choline-PET in detecting oligorecurrence limited to lymph nodes, and to review the main studies supporting either ablative stereotactic body radiotherapy or regional lymph node irradiation in this clinical setting. RESULTS: PSMA-PET has shown higher efficacy in the diagnosis of nodal lesions if compared with choline-PET. More specifically, for PSA ≤ 2 ng/ml, the median detection rate of choline-PET ranges from 19.5 to 44.5%, whereas PSMA ranges from 51.5 to 74%. SBRT achieves high local control rates positively affecting progression-free survival (PFS), with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT)-free survival ranging from 25 to 44 months and with low toxicity rates (0-15%). Prophylactic nodal irradiation shows 3-year PFS rates ranging from 62 to 75%, but with a potential higher risk of toxicity. However, the chosen treatment option needs to be tailored on the single patient. CONCLUSIONS: Newer PET/CT radio-labeled tracers have increased disease detection in oligorecurrent prostate cancer patients. Growing evidence of their impact on metastasis-directed therapy encourages the use of the most advanced radiotherapy techniques in the clinical management of such patients.

Long-term cognitive dysfunction after radiation therapy for primary brain tumors.

Background: The extent of radiation therapy (RT)-induced changes in cognitive function is unknown. RT with protons instead of photons spares the healthy brain tissue more and is believed to reduce the risk of cognitive dysfunction. There is modest knowledge on which parts of the brain we need to spare, to prevent cognitive dysfunction. To uncover which cognitive domains is most affected, we compared cognitive functioning in brain tumor patients treated with neurosurgery and RT with brain tumor patients treated with neurosurgery alone. Methods: A cross-sectional study assessing cognitive function in 110 patients with a primary brain tumor grades I-III or medulloblastoma (grade IV) treated at Aarhus University Hospital (AUH), Denmark between 2006 and 2016. Two cohorts were established: a cohort of 81 brain tumor patients who had received neurosurgery followed by RT (RT+), and a cohort of 29 brain tumor patients who had only received neurosurgery (RT-). The patients underwent questionnaires and neuropsychological assessment with standardized tests. Results: Mean age was 53.5 years with an average time since diagnosis of 7.3 years. Compared with normative data, lower average scores were observed for the entire group on domains concerning of verbal learning and memory (p < .001), attention and working memory (p < .001), processing speed (p < .001), and executive functioning (p < .001). Compared to RT- patients, RT + patients scored lower on domains concerning processing speed (p = .04) and executive function (p = .05) and had higher impairment frequency on verbal fluency (p = .02) with 16% of patients exceeding 1.5 SD below normative data. Conclusions: Our results indicate that treatment, including RT, for a primary brain tumor may have negative long-term impact on cognitive function, especially on processing speed and executive function.

Radiation doses to brain substructures associated with cognition in radiotherapy of pediatric brain tumors.

Background: Several brain substructures associated with cognition (BSCs) are located close to typical pediatric brain tumors. Pediatric patients therefore have considerable risks of neurocognitive impairment after brain radiotherapy. In this study, we investigated the radiation doses received by BSCs for three common locations of pediatric brain tumor entities. Material and methods: For ten patients in each group [posterior fossa ependymoma (PFE), craniopharyngioma (CP), and hemispheric ependymoma (HE)], the cumulative fraction of BSCs volumes receiving various dose levels were analyzed. We subsequently explored the differences in dose pattern between the three groups and used available dose response models from the literature to estimate treatment-induced intelligence quotient (IQ) decline. Results: Doses to BSCs were found to differ considerably between the groups, depending on their position relative to the tumor. Large inter-patient variations were observed in the ipsilateral structures of the HE groups, and at low doses for all three groups. IQ decline estimates differed depending on the model applied, presenting larger variations in the HE group. Conclusion: While there were notable differences in the dose patterns between the groups, the extent of estimated IQ decline depended more on the model applied. This inter-model variability should be considered in dose-effect assessments on cognitive outcomes of pediatric patients.

Metastasis directed therapy for liver and lung metastases from colorectal cancer-A population-based study.

About 10-20% of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) are candidates for metastasis directed therapies such as surgical resection, ablation and stereotactic radiotherapy. We examined the temporal changes in use of metastasis directed therapies and established prognostic factors for survival in a nationwide cohort study. The Danish nationwide medical registries were used to retrieve data on treatment for liver and/or lung metastasis in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer in the period 2000-2013. Overall survival through 2014 was calculated from the time of treatment of metastases by Kaplan-Meier method and mortality between groups was assessed using Cox regression. We report 2,912 patients undergoing a total of 3,602 procedures with an increased use of all modalities during 14 calendar years. Median survival was 3.7 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0-9.7 years). In the multivariate analysis, the nodal stage of the primary tumor had the most pronounced association with survival with a hazard ratio for mortality of 1.56 (95% CI: 1.33-1.83) for N2 stage with reference to N0. Furthermore, female gender, age, comorbidity, surgical treatment, administration of chemotherapy, and left-sided primary tumors were associated with improved prognosis in the multivariate analysis.

Limited post-chemotherapy retroperitoneal resection of residual tumour in non-seminomatous testicular cancer: complications, outcome and quality of life.

BACKGROUND: Resection of residual masses after chemotherapy plays a crucial role in management of patients with germ cell tumours (GCTs). The extent of surgery is controversial and we present the experiences from Aarhus University Hospital over a 20-year period. The aim was to evaluate survival, complications, working ability and quality of life (QOL) following a limited surgical procedure performed to resect residual masses in non-seminomatous testicular cancer patients after chemotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A consecutive patient cohort of 109 patients having surgery between 1993 and 2013 was investigated. Hospital records were reviewed and complications were graded according to the Clavien-Dindo classification. QOL data were assessed in a cross-sectional analysis using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), QLQ-C30 version 3.0. Patients were matched 1:1 with controls to evaluate the influence of surgical resection on the QOL. RESULTS: With a median follow-up of 10.3 years, 11 relapses in retroperitoneum were recorded in 10 patients (9%), and four patients (5%) died of disease progression. The majority of relapses in patients considered having no evidence of disease (NED) after primary retroperitoneal surgery occurred 10 + years after treatment and was outside the field of the elective lymph node dissection. Twenty-seven (44%) grade I, 15 (24%) grade II, 7 (11%) grade IIIa and 13 (21%) grade IIIb complications were recorded. No grade IV and V complications were observed. Twenty-three patients (20%) reported loss of antegrade ejaculation. We found no significant differences between patients and controls regarding QOL. CONCLUSION: The survival outcome and complication rate are favourable and are comparable to studies involving full and modified template lymph node dissection. We find that limited resection constitutes an applicable and safe procedure. Limited surgical resection did not influence the patients' long-term QOL. Longer follow-up might be considered.

Cone beam CT-based set-up strategies with and without rotational correction for stereotactic body radiation therapy in the liver.

BACKGROUND: Accurate patient positioning is crucial in stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) due to a high dose regimen. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) is often used for patient positioning based on radio-opaque markers. We compared six CBCT-based set-up strategies with or without rotational correction. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients with three implanted markers received 3-6 fraction liver SBRT. The markers were delineated on the mid-ventilation phase of a 4D-planning-CT. One pretreatment CBCT was acquired per fraction. Set-up strategy 1 used only translational correction based on manual marker match between the CBCT and planning CT. Set-up strategy 2 used automatic 6 degrees-of-freedom registration of the vertebrae closest to the target. The 3D marker trajectories were also extracted from the projections and the mean position of each marker was calculated and used for set-up strategies 3-6. Translational correction only was used for strategy 3. Translational and rotational corrections were used for strategies 4-6 with the rotation being either vertebrae based (strategy 4), or marker based and constrained to ±3° (strategy 5) or unconstrained (strategy 6). The resulting set-up error was calculated as the 3D root-mean-square set-up error of the three markers. The set-up error of the spinal cord was calculated for all strategies. RESULTS: The bony anatomy set-up (2) had the largest set-up error (5.8 mm). The marker-based set-up with unconstrained rotations (6) had the smallest set-up error (0.8 mm) but the largest spinal cord set-up error (12.1 mm). The marker-based set-up with translational correction only (3) or with bony anatomy rotational correction (4) had equivalent set-up error (1.3 mm) but rotational correction reduced the spinal cord set-up error from 4.1 mm to 3.5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Marker-based set-up was substantially better than bony-anatomy set-up. Rotational correction may improve the set-up, but further investigations are required to determine the optimal correction strategy.