Audiovisual biofeedback breathing guidance for lung cancer patients receiving radiotherapy: a multi-institutional phase II randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clear link between irregular breathing and errors in medical imaging and radiation treatment. The audiovisual biofeedback system is an advanced form of respiratory guidance that has previously demonstrated to facilitate regular patient breathing. The clinical benefits of audiovisual biofeedback will be investigated in an upcoming multi-institutional, randomised, and stratified clinical trial recruiting a total of 75 lung cancer patients undergoing radiation therapy. METHODS/DESIGN: To comprehensively perform a clinical evaluation of the audiovisual biofeedback system, a multi-institutional study will be performed. Our methodological framework will be based on the widely used Technology Acceptance Model, which gives qualitative scales for two specific variables, perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use, which are fundamental determinants for user acceptance. A total of 75 lung cancer patients will be recruited across seven radiation oncology departments across Australia. Patients will be randomised in a 2:1 ratio, with 2/3 of the patients being recruited into the intervention arm and 1/3 in the control arm. 2:1 randomisation is appropriate as within the interventional arm there is a screening procedure where only patients whose breathing is more regular with audiovisual biofeedback will continue to use this system for their imaging and treatment procedures. Patients within the intervention arm whose free breathing is more regular than audiovisual biofeedback in the screen procedure will remain in the intervention arm of the study but their imaging and treatment procedures will be performed without audiovisual biofeedback. Patients will also be stratified by treating institution and for treatment intent (palliative vs. radical) to ensure similar balance in the arms across the sites. Patients and hospital staff operating the audiovisual biofeedback system will complete questionnaires to assess their experience with audiovisual biofeedback. The objectives of this clinical trial is to assess the impact of audiovisual biofeedback on breathing motion, the patient experience and clinical confidence in the system, clinical workflow, treatment margins, and toxicity outcomes. DISCUSSION: This clinical trial marks an important milestone in breathing guidance studies as it will be the first randomised, controlled trial providing the most comprehensive evaluation of the clinical impact of breathing guidance on cancer radiation therapy to date. This study is powered to determine the impact of AV biofeedback on breathing regularity and medical image quality. Objectives such as determining the indications and contra-indications for the use of AV biofeedback, evaluation of patient experience, radiation toxicity occurrence and severity, and clinician confidence will shed light on the design of future phase III clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), its trial ID is ACTRN12613001177741 .

SABR for Early Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Changes in Pulmonary Function, Dyspnea, and Quality of Life.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to report pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and clinician-reported and patient-reported quality-of-life (QoL) outcomes on a cohort of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with SABR. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A total of 119 patients with NSCLC were treated with SABR in the prospective cohort SSBROC study of patients with T1-T2N0M0 NSCLC. PFTs and QoL measures were obtained at baseline pretreatment and at 6-month intervals. Here we report on the 6- to 18-month time points. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods adjusting for baseline analyzed potential predictors on outcomes of PFTs and patient-reported dyspnea at 18 months. RESULTS: The only statistically significant decline in PFTs was seen in forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) at 18 months post-SABR, with a decline of -0.11 L (P = .0087; 95% CI, -0.18 to -0.02). Of potential predictors of decline, only a 1-unit increase in smoking pack-years resulted in a -0.12 change in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide (P = .026; 95% CI, -0.02 to -0.23) and a 0.003 decrease in FEV1 (P = .026; 95% CI, -0.006 to -0.0004). For patient-reported outcomes, statistically significant worsening in both the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30 Version 3) and the lung module (QLQ-LC13) dyspnea scores occurred at the 18-month time point, but not earlier. No potential predictors of worsening dyspnea were statistically significant. There was no statistically significant decline in clinician-reported outcomes or global QoL scores. CONCLUSIONS: We found a statistically significant decline in FEV1 at 18 months posttreatment. Smoking pack-years was a predictor for decline in diffusing capacity for carbon monoxide and FEV1 at 18 months. Worsening of patient-reported dyspnea scores was observed, consistent with the expected progression of lung comorbid disease.

Collaborative implementation of stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy: A model for the safe implementation of complex radiotherapy techniques in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) for lung cancer is a modality of treatment that has improved outcomes for lung cancer patients. However, radiotherapy for lung cancer is underutilized and fewer than half of elderly patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) receive active treatment. The purpose of this study is to report on a collaboration in implementing an NSCLC SABR (stereotactic ablative body radiation) program safely, efficiently, and uniformly across several centers, including regional sites. The first aim of this paper is to detail the collaboration and implementation that started in 2013 and is ongoing. The second aim of this paper is to document early toxicities and quality of life outcomes. METHOD: A tripartite approach was used to develop the protocol and networks required for the implementation of SABR across multiple sites in NSW. Departments starting the programmes were supported and physics credentialing with central site submission was required before commencing the treatment. Additional ongoing support was available via an email discussion group involving all members of the collaboration. RESULTS: Between July 22, 2013 and February 22, 2016, 41 patients were enrolled with 34 patients in active follow up. The toxicity profile so far is similar to those of published studies with no appreciable effect on quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSION: The collaboration formed an effective framework in facilitating the implementation of SABR across several sites in NSW and could be used as a model for the safe and uniform implementation of new technologies in Australia.