21 research outputs found

    Benefit of respiratory gating in the Danish Breast Cancer Group partial breast irradiation trial

    Get PDF
    Background and purpose: Partial breast irradiation (PBI)has beenthe Danish Breast Cancer Group(DBCG) standard for selected breast cancer patients since 2016 based onearlyresults from the DBCG PBI trial.During trial accrual, respiratory-gated radiotherapy was introduced in Denmark. This study aims to investigate the effect of respiratory-gating on mean heart dose (MHD).Patients and methods: From 2009 to 2016 the DBCG PBI trial included 230 patientswith left-sided breast cancer receiving external beam PBI, 40 Gy/15 fractions/3 weeks.Localization of the tumor bed on the planning CT scan, the use of respiratory-gating, coverage of the clinical target volume (CTV), and doses to organs at risk were collected.Results: Respiratory-gating was used in 123 patients (53 %). In 176 patients (77 %) the tumor bed was in the upper and in 54 patients (23 %) in the lower breast quadrants. The median MHD was 0.37 Gy (interquartile range 0.26-0.57 Gy), 0.33 Gy (0.23-0.49 Gy) for respiratory-gating, and 0.49 Gy (0.31-0.70 Gy) for free breathing, p < 0.0001. MHD was < 1 Gy in 206 patients (90 %) and < 2 Gy in 221 patients (96 %). Respiratory-gating led to significantly lower MHD for upper-located, but not for lower-located tumor beds, however, all MHD were low irrespective of respiratory-gating. Respiratory-gating did not improve CTV coverage or lower lung doses.Conclusions: PBI ensured a low MHD for most patients. Adding respiratory-gating further reduced MHD for upper-located but not for lower-located tumor beds but did not influence target coverage or lung doses. Respiratory-gating is no longer DBCG standard for left-sided PBI

    Shared decision making with breast cancer patients - does it work? Results of the cluster-randomized, multicenter DBCG RT SDM trial

    Get PDF
    Background and purpose: Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient engaging process advocated especially for preference-sensitive decisions, such as adjuvant treatment after breast cancer. An increasing call for patient engagement in decision making highlights the need for a systematic SDM approach. The objective of this trial was to investigate whether the Decision Helper (DH), an in-consultation patient decision aid, increases patient engagement in decisions regarding adjuvant whole breast irradiation.Material and methods: Oncologists at four radiotherapy units were randomized to practice SDM using the DH versus usual practice. Patient candidates for adjuvant whole breast irradiation after breast conserving surgery for node-negative breast cancer were eligible. The primary endpoint was patient-reported engagement in the decision process assessed with the Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) (range 0-100, 4 points difference considered clinical relevant). Other endpoints included oncologist-reported patient engagement, decisional conflict, fear of cancer recurrence, and decision regret after 6 months.Results: Of the 674 included patients, 635 (94.2%) completed the SDM-Q-9. Patients in the intervention group reported higher level of engagement (median 80; IQR 68.9 to 94.4) than the control group (71.1; IQR 55.6 to 82.2; p < 0.0001). Oncologist-reported patient engagement was higher in the invention group (93.3; IQR 82.2 to 100) compared to control group (73.3; IQR 60.0 to 84.4) (p < 0.0001).Conclusion: Patient engagement in medical decision making was significantly improved with the use of an in-consultation patient decision aid compared to standard. The DH on adjuvant whole breast irradiation is now recommended as standard of care in the Danish guideline

    Breast cancer patients report reduced sensitivity and pain using a barrier film during radiotherapy – A Danish intra-patient randomized multicentre study

    No full text
    Background and Purpose: Radiodermatitis is a well-known toxicity of radiotherapy and barrier film has been shown to reduce the severity of radiodermatitis. We have validated prior findings in a Danish cohort, using a similar barrier film and patient reported outcomes. Materials and Methods: 101 Danish breast cancer patients were included at three radiotherapy centres. Based on randomization either the lateral or medial part of their chest was covered by Mepitel film; making the patients their own control. The primary endpoint was patient reported symptoms and experience. A secondary endpoint was radiotherapy staff evaluation of dermatitis. Results: Within the skin area covered by film, the patients reported a statistical significant lower level of pain (p < .001), itching (p = 0.005), burning sensation (p = 0.005) as well as edema (p = 0.017) and reduced sensitivity (p < .001). Most patients (76%) would have preferred film on the entire treatment area (p < 0.001) and Mepitel Film as a standard treatment option (84%) (p < 0.001). Patients treated after mastectomy had a significantly lower severity of radiation-induced dermatitis with film at the end of RT compared to standard care (p = 0.005). However, in the blinded staff evaluation, no significant differences were found at follow-up. Conclusions: Patients reported reduced symptoms from the skin with Mepitel Film and the majority would have preferred film as a standard offer to cover their entire treatment area. Especially women treated after mastectomy had a significantly lower level of radiodermatitis and preferred the film over standard care. Keywords: Breast cancer, PRO, Radiotherapy, Mepitel film, Radiodermatiti
    corecore