Impact of persistent peripheral neuropathy on health-related quality of life among early-stage breast cancer survivors : a population-based cross-sectional study

Background We explored the impact of persistent sensory and motor taxane-induced peripheral neuropathy (TIPN) symptoms on health-related quality of life (HRQL) among early-stage breast cancer survivors (ESBCS). Methods A population-based cohort of 884 residual-free ESBCS received a postal questionnaire, including the EORTC chemotherapy-induced PN (CIPN20) and the EORTC QLQ-C30 instruments. Mean scores of QLQ-C30 scales among ESBCS with and without TIPN were calculated and adjusted for confounding factors (age, lifestyle factors, co-morbidities; linear regression analyses). Interpretation of QLQ-C30 results were based on guidelines. Results Response rate was 79%, and 646 survivors were included in the analysis. In median, 3.6 (1.5-7.3) years had elapsed post-taxane treatment. All TIPN symptoms had a significant impact on global QoL, which worsened with increased severity of TIPN. Between 29.5% and 93.3% of ESBCS with moderate-severe TIPN reported a clinical important impairment of functioning and personal finances, 64.3-85.7% reporting "difficulty walking because of foot drop," and 53.1-81.3% reporting "problems standing/walking because of difficulty feeling ground under feet" had impaired functioning/finances. The difference in mean scores between affected and non-affected survivors was highest for "numbness in toes/feet" and "difficulty walking because of foot drop." Moderate-severe "difficulty climbing stairs or getting out of chair because of weakness of legs" and "problems standing/walking because of difficulty feeling ground under feet" were associated with the largest clinically important differences on all scales. Conclusion Persistent sensory and motor TIPN is associated with clinically relevant impairment of global QoL, functioning, and personal finances among ESBCS, which increased with level of TIPN severity.Funding Agencies|Linkoping University; Swedish Cancer Society [190224]; Medical Research Council of Southeast Sweden [FORSS-932359]; FuturumThe Academy for Health and Care, Jonkoping County Council [575361]; Forsknings-ALF [LIO-901261]</p

Clinical oncology module for the ESTRO core curriculum

Introduction: Clinical oncologists are physicians with the competencies to manage cancer patients through the entire disease pathway combining the competencies of radiation and medical oncologists. The 4th edition of the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology Core Curriculum for Radiation Oncology/Radiotherapy (ESTRO curriculum) has received wide support by the clinical oncology community. The aim was to develop a clinical oncology module that could be combined with the ESTRO curriculum to enable clinical oncology trainees to follow a single curriculum. Materials and methods: A range of stakeholders including National Society representatives, an oncologist from a low- middle-income country, and a recently appointed specialist, developed and commented on iterations of the curriculum. Further modifications were made by the ESTRO Education Council. Results: The module is based on the CanMEDS 2015 framework and identifies 20 enabling competencies in the Medical Expert role that are required in addition to the ESTRO curriculum for the training of clinical oncologists. Recommendations are made for the levels of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) to be attained by the end of training. Conclusions: The Clinical Oncology module, when combined with the ESTRO curriculum, covers the entire cancer pathway rather than being modality specific. It is hoped it will aid in the development of comparable standards of training in clinical oncology across Europe and may also have utility in low- and middle-income countries as well as providing a single curriculum for trainees. (C) 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved

The quality assurance process for the ARTSCAN head and neck study - A practical interactive approach for QA in 3DCRT and IMRT

Aim: This paper describes the quality assurance (QA) work performed in the Swedish multicenter ARTSCAN (Accelerated RadioTherapy of Squamous cell CArcinomas in the head and Neck) trial to guarantee high quality in a multicenter study which involved modern radiotherapy such as 3DCRT or IMRT. Materials and methods: The study was closed in June 2006 with 750 randomised patients. Radiation therapy-related data for every patient were sent by each participating centre to the QA office where all trial data were reviewed, analysed and stored. In case of any deviation from the protocol, an interactive process was started between the QA office and the local responsible clinician and/or physicist to increase the compliance to the protocol for future randomised patients. Meetings and workshops were held on a regular basis for discussions on various trial-related issues and for the QA office to report on updated results. Results and discussion: This review covers the 734 patients out of a total of 750 who had entered the study. Deviations early in the study were corrected so that the overall compliance to the protocol was very high. There were only negligible variations in doses and dose distributions to target volumes for each specific site and stage. The quality of the treatments was high. Furthermore, an extensive database of treatment parameters was accumulated for future dose-volume vs. endpoint evaluations. Conclusions: This comprehensive QA programme increased the probability to draw firm conclusions from our study and may serve as a concept for QA work in future radiotherapy trials where comparatively small effects are searched for in a heterogeneous tumour population

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

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