ESTRO consensus guideline on target volume delineation for elective radiation therapy of early stage breast cancer

Background and purpose: Delineation of clinical target volumes (CTVs) is a weak link in radiation therapy (RT), and large inter-observer variation is seen in breast cancer patients. Several guidelines have been proposed, but most result in larger CTVs than based on conventional simulator-based RT. The aim was to develop a delineation guideline obtained by consensus between a broad European group of radiation oncologists. Material and methods: During ESTRO teaching courses on breast cancer, teachers sought consensus on delineation of CTV through dialogue based on cases. One teacher delineated CTV on CT scans of 2 patients, followed by discussion and adaptation of the delineation. The consensus established between teachers was sent to other teams working in the same field, both locally and on a national level, for their input. This was followed by developing a broad consensus based on discussions. Results: Borders of the CTV encompassing a 5mm margin around the large veins, running through the regional lymph node levels were agreed, and for the breast/thoracic wall other vessels were pointed out to guide delineation, with comments on margins for patients with advanced breast cancer. Conclusion: The ESTRO consensus on CTV for elective RT of breast cancer, endorsed by a broad base of the radiation oncology community, is presented to improve consistency

Conformal Therapy Improves the Therapeutic Index of Patients with Anal Canal Cancer Treated with Combined Chemotherapy and External Beam Radiotherapy

Purpose: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT) in patients with anal canal cancer, in terms of local control (LC), freedom from relapse (FFR), and overall survival (OS) rates, and to estimate long-term toxicity data. Methods and Materials: Sixty historical patients, treated with conventional radiation techniques (C-RT), were used as controls, and 62 consecutive patients were treated with 3D-CRT. Patients treated with 3D-CRT received 54 Gy in 30 fractions delivered continuously, compared with 45–58.9 Gy (median dose, 54 Gy) in a split course in patients treated with C-RT. Chemotherapy consisted of 5-fluorouracil with either mitomycin-C or cis-platinum given concurrently with radiation. Survival curves were performed using the Kaplan-Meier model, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used for multivariate analysis of risk factors. Results: No differences in stage and age distribution were observed between the two groups. Patients treated with 3D-CRT and C-RT had an actuarial 5-year LC rate of 85.1% and 61.1%, respectively ( p = 0.0056); the FFR rate was 70.2% and 46.1% ( p = 0.0166), and the OS rate was 80.7% and 53.9% ( p = 0.0171). In multivariate analysis, factors of significance for LC were nodal (N) status ( p < 0.001); for OS, 3D-CRT ( p = 0.038), N status ( p = 0.011), and T status ( p = 0.012); and for FFR, 3D-CRT ( p = 0.024) and N status ( p < 0.001). Conclusion: The use of 3D-CRT allows patients with anal canal cancer to complete radiation and chemotherapy without interruption for toxicity, with significant improvements in LC, FFR, and OS

Quality of Life Outcomes After Stereotactic Ablative Radiation Therapy (SABR) Versus Standard of Care Treatments in the Oligometastatic Setting: A Secondary Analysis of the SABR-COMET Randomized Trial

Purpose: Randomized data assessing the longitudinal quality of life (QoL) impact of stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in the oligometastatic setting are lacking. Methods and Materials: We enrolled patients who had a controlled primary malignancy with 1 to 5 metastatic lesions, with good performance status and life expectancy \u3e6 months. We randomized in a 1:2 ratio between standard of care (SOC) treatment (SOC arm) and SOC plus SABR to all metastatic lesions (SABR arm). QoL was measured using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General. QoL changes over time and between groups were assessed with linear mixed modeling. Results: Ninety-nine patients were randomized. Median age was 68 years (range, 43-89), and 60% were male. The most common primary tumor types were breast (n = 18), lung (n = 18), colorectal (n = 18), and prostate (n = 16). Most patients (n = 92) had 1 to 3 metastases. Median follow-up was 26 months. Because of the previously reported inferior survival of the SOC arm, the time for attrition in QoL respondents to \u3c10% of subjects was shorter in the SOC versus SABR arm (30 vs 42 months). In the whole cohort, QoL declined over time after randomization: There were significant declines in total Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–General score over time compared with baseline (P \u3c.001) owing to declines in physical and functional subscales (both P \u3c.001), with no declines in social and emotional subscales. However, the magnitudes of decline were small, and clinically meaningful changes were not seen at most time points. Comparison between arms showed no differences in QoL between the SABR and SOC arms in total score (P =.42) or in the physical (P =.98), functional (P =.59), emotional (P =.82), or social (P =.17) subscales. Conclusions: For patients with oligometastases, average QoL declines slowly over time regardless of treatment approach, although the changes are small in magnitude. The use of SABR, compared with SOC, was not associated with a QoL detriment

Is SABR cost-effective in oligometastatic cancer?: An economic analysis of the SABR-COMET randomized trial

Purpose: The phase 2 randomized study SABR-COMET demonstrated that in patients with controlled primary tumors and 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions, SABR was associated with improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with standard of care (SoC), but with higher costs and treatment-related toxicities. The aim of this study was to assess the cost-effectiveness of SABR versus SoC in this setting. Methods and Materials: A Markov model was constructed to perform a cost-utility analysis from the Canadian health care system perspective. Utility values and transition probabilities were derived from individual-level data from the SABR-COMET trial. One-way, 2-way, and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Costs were expressed in 2018 CAD. A separate analysis based on US payer's perspective was performed. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) was used. Results: In the base case scenario, SABR was cost-effective at an ICER of$37,157 per QALY gained. This finding was most sensitive to the number of metastatic lesions treated with SABR (ICER: $28,066 per QALY for 2, increasing to$64,429 per QALY for 5), difference in chemotherapy use (ICER: $27,173-$53,738 per QALY), and PFS hazard ratio (HR) between strategies (ICER: $31,548-$53,273 per QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis revealed that SABR was cost-effective in 97% of all iterations. Two-way sensitivity analysis demonstrated a nonlinear relationship between the number of lesions and the PFS HR. To maintain cost-effectiveness for each additional metastasis, the HR must decrease by approximately 0.047. The US cost analysis yielded similar results, with an ICER of $54,564 (2018 USD per QALY) for SABR. Conclusions: SABR is cost-effective for patients with 1 to 5 oligometastatic lesions compared with SoC