Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

Gastric cancer; Metastasectomy; OligometastasisCáncer gástrico; Metastasectomía; OligometástasisCàncer gàstric; Metastasectomia; OligometàstasiBackground Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. Methods In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%–75%) or consensus (≥75%). Results A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

Definitions and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer according to multidisciplinary tumour boards in Europe

Oesophageal neoplasm; Oligometastasis; RadiosurgeryNeoplàsia esofàgica; Oligometàstasi; RadiocirurgiaNeoplasia esofágica; Oligometástasis; RadiocirugíaBackground Consensus about the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. Objective To assess the definition and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer across multidisciplinary tumour boards (MDTs) in Europe. Material and methods European expert centers (n = 49) were requested to discuss 15 real-life cases in their MDT with at least a medical, surgical, and radiation oncologist present. The cases varied in terms of location and number of metastases, histology, timing of detection (i.e. synchronous versus metachronous), primary tumour treatment status, and response to systemic therapy. The primary outcome was the agreement in the definition of oligometastatic disease at diagnosis and after systemic therapy. The secondary outcome was the agreement in treatment strategies. Treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease were categorised into upfront local treatment (i.e. metastasectomy or stereotactic radiotherapy), systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment or systemic therapy alone. The agreement across MDTs was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%–75%), or consensus (≥75%). Results A total of 47 MDTs across 16 countries fully discussed the cases (96%). Oligometastatic disease was considered in patients with 1–2 metastases in either the liver, lung, retroperitoneal lymph nodes, adrenal gland, soft tissue or bone (consensus). At follow-up, oligometastatic disease was considered after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy when no progression or progression in size only of the oligometastatic lesion(s) was seen (consensus). If at restaging after a median of 18 weeks of systemic therapy the number of lesions progressed, this was not considered as oligometastatic disease (fair agreement). There was no consensus on treatment strategies for oligometastatic disease. Conclusion A broad consensus on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer was found among MDTs of oesophagogastric cancer expert centres in Europe. However, high practice variability in treatment strategies exists

Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life after accelerated whole breast irradiation in 5 fractions with simultaneous integrated boost

Introduction: Acceleration of radiotherapy in 5 fractions for breast cancer can reduce the burden of treatment. We report on acute toxicity after whole-breast irradiation with a simultaneous integrated boost in 5 fractions over 10-12 days. Material and methods: Acute toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of 200 patients, randomized between a 15or 5-fractions schedule, were collected, using the CTCAE toxicity scoring system, the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory, EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 and the BREAST-Q questionnaire. The prescribed dose to the breast was either 15*2.67 Gy (40.05 Gy) or 5*5.7 Gy (28.5 Gy). 90% of patients received a SIB to a cumulative dose of 46.8 Gy (15*3.12 Gy) or 31 Gy (5*6.2 Gy). Results: Physician-assessed toxicity was lower for the 5-fractions group. A significant difference was observed for breast pain (p = 0.002), fatigue (p < 0.0001), breast edema (p = 0.001) and dermatitis (p = 0.003). Patients treated in 5 fractions reported better mean HRQoL scores for breast symptoms (p = 0.001) and physical well-being (p = 0.001). A clinically important deterioration in HRQoL of 10 points or more was also less frequently observed in the latter group for physical functioning (p = 0.0005), social functioning (p = 0.0007), fatigue (p = 0.003), breast symptoms (p = 0.0002) and physical wellbeing (p = 0.002). Conclusion: In this single institute study, acute toxicity of accelerated breast radiotherapy in 5 fractions over 10-12 days seems to compare favourably to hypofractionated breast radiotherapy in 15 fractions. Less breast edema, dermatitis, desquamation, breast pain and fatigue are seen. Social and physical functioning are also less disturbed and patients have a better future perspective

Adoption of single fraction radiotherapy for uncomplicated bone metastases in a tertiary centre

Background: Single-fraction radiotherapy (SFRT) offers equal pain relief for uncomplicated painful bone metastases as compared to multiple-fraction radiotherapy (MFRT). Despite this evidence, the adoption of SFRT has been poor with published rates of SFRT for uncomplicated bone metastases ranging from <10% to 70%. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of SFRT and its evolution over time following the more formal endorsement of the international guidelines in our centre starting from 2013. Materials and methods: We performed a retrospective review of fractionation schedules at our centre for painful uncomplicated bone metastases from January 2013 until December 2017. Only patients treated with 1 x 8 Gy (SFRT-group) or 10 x 3 Gy (MFRT-group) were included. We excluded other fractionation schedules, primary cancer of the bone and post-operative radiotherapy. Uncomplicated was defined as painful but not associated with impending fracture, existing fracture or existing neurological compression. Temporal trends in SFRT/MFRT usage and overall survival were investigated. We performed a lesion-based patterns of care analysis and a patient-based survival analysis. Mann-Whitney U and Chisquare test were used to assess differences between fractionation schedules and temporal trends in prescription, with Kaplan-Meier estimates used for survival analysis (p-value <0.05 considered significant). Results: Overall, 352 patients and 594 uncomplicated bone metastases met inclusion criteria. Patient characteristics were comparable between SFRT and MFRT, except for age. Overall, SFRT was used in 92% of all metastases compared to 8% for MFRT. SFRT rates increased throughout the study period from 85% in 2013 to 95% in 2017 (p = 0.06). Re-irradiation rates were higher in patients treated with SFRT (14%) as compared to MFRT (4%) (p = 0.046). Four-week mortality and median overall survival did not differ significantly between SFRT and MFRT (17% vs 18%, p = 0.8 and 25 weeks vs 38 weeks, p = 0.97, respectively). Conclusions: Adherence to the international guidelines for SFRT for uncomplicated bone metastasis was high and increased over time to 95%, which is the highest reported rate in literature. (C)2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology

Crawl positioning improves set-up precision and patient comfort in prone whole breast irradiation

Prone positioning for whole-breast irradiation (WBI) reduces dose to organs at risk, but reduces set-up speed, precision, and comfort. We aimed to improve these problems by placing patients in prone crawl position on a newly developed crawl couch (CrC). A group of 10 right-sided breast cancer patients requiring WBI were randomized in this cross-over trial, comparing the CrC to a standard prone breastboard (BB). Laterolateral (LL), craniocaudal (CC) and anterioposterior (AP) set-up errors were evaluated with cone beam CT. Comfort, preference and set-up time (SUT) were assessed. Forty left and right-sided breast cancer patients served as a validation group. For BB versus CrC, AP, LL and CC mean patient shifts were - 0.8 +/- 2.8, 0.2 +/- 11.7 and - 0.6 +/- 4.4 versus - 0.2 +/- 3.3, - 0.8 +/- 2.5 and - 1.9 +/- 5.7 mm. LL shift spread was reduced significantly. Nine out of 10 patients preferred the CrC. SUT did not differ significantly. The validation group had mean patient shifts of 1.7 +/- 2.9 (AP), 0.2 +/- 3.6 (LL) and - 0.2 +/- 3.3 (CC) mm. Mean SUT in the validation group was 1 min longer (P<0.05) than the comparative group. Median SUT was 3 min in all groups. The CrC improved precision and comfort compared to BB. Set-up errors compare favourably to other prone-WBI trials and rival supine positioning

Effects of deep inspiration breath hold on prone photon or proton irradiation of breast and regional lymph nodes

We report on a comparative dosimetrical study between deep inspiration breath hold (DIBH) and shallow breathing (SB) in prone crawl position for photon and proton radiotherapy of whole breast (WB) and locoregional lymph node regions, including the internal mammary chain (LN_MI). We investigate the dosimetrical effects of DIBH in prone crawl position on organs-at-risk for both photon and proton plans. For each modality, we further estimate the effects of lung and heart doses on the mortality risks of different risk profiles of patients. Thirty-one patients with invasive carcinoma of the left breast and pathologically confirmed positive lymph node status were included in this study. DIBH significantly decreased dose to heart for photon and proton radiotherapy. DIBH also decreased lung doses for photons, while increased lung doses were observed using protons because the retracting heart is displaced by low-density lung tissue. For other organs-at-risk, DIBH resulted in significant dose reductions using photons while minor differences in dose deposition between DIBH and SB were observed using protons. In patients with high risks for cardiac and lung cancer mortality, average thirty-year mortality rates from radiotherapy-related cardiac injury and lung cancer were estimated at 3.12% (photon DIBH), 4.03% (photon SB), 1.80% (proton DIBH) and 1.66% (proton SB). The radiationrelated mortality risk could not outweigh the similar to 8% disease-specific survival benefit of WB + LN_MI radiotherapy in any of the assessed treatments

Whole breast and regional nodal irradiation in prone versus supine position in left sided breast cancer

Background: Prone whole breast irradiation (WBI) leads to reduced heart and lung doses in breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant radiotherapy. In this feasibility trial, we investigated the prone position for whole breast + lymph node irradiation (WB + LNI). Methods: A new support device was developed for optimal target coverage, on which patients are positioned in a position resembling a phase from the crawl swimming technique (prone crawl position). Five left sided breast cancer patients were included and simulated in supine and prone position. For each patient, a treatment plan was made in prone and supine position for WB + LNI to the whole axilla and the unoperated part of the axilla. Patients served as their own controls for comparing dosimetry of target volumes and organs at risk (OAR) in prone versus in supine position. Results: Target volume coverage differed only slightly between prone and supine position. Doses were significantly reduced (P < 0.05) in prone position for ipsilateral lung (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), contralateral lung (Dmean, D2), contralateral breast (Dmean, D2 and for total axillary WB + LNI also V5), thyroid (Dmean, D2, V5, V10, V20, V30), oesophagus (Dmean and for partial axillary WB + LNI also D2 and V5), skin (D2 and for partial axillary WB + LNI V105 and V107). There were no significant differences for heart and humeral head doses. Conclusions: Prone crawl position in WB + LNI allows for good breast and nodal target coverage with better sparing of ipsilateral lung, thyroid, contralateral breast, contralateral lung and oesophagus when compared to supine position. There is no difference in heart and humeral head doses

Definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer: A Delphi consensus study in Europe

BACKGROUND Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer. METHODS In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Delphi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi questionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (≥75%). RESULTS A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with metastatic oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with ≤3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without progression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval ≤2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment followed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). CONCLUSION The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus statement for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adenocarcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials

European clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of oligometastatic esophagogastric cancer (OMEC-4)

Introduction: The OligoMetastatic Esophagogastric Cancer (OMEC) project aims to provide clinical practice guidelines for the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of esophagogastric oligometastatic disease (OMD). Methods: Guidelines were developed according to AGREE II and GRADE principles. Guidelines were based on a systematic review (OMEC-1), clinical case discussions (OMEC-2), and a Delphi consensus study (OMEC-3) by 49 European expert centers for esophagogastric cancer. OMEC identified patients for whom the term OMD is considered or could be considered. Disease-free interval (DFI) was defined as the time between primary tumor treatment and detection of OMD. Results: Moderate to high quality of evidence was found (i.e. 1 randomized and 4 non-randomized phase II trials) resulting in moderate recommendations. OMD is considered in esophagogastric cancer patients with 1 organ with ≤ 3 metastases or 1 involved extra-regional lymph node station. In addition, OMD continues to be considered in patients with OMD without progression in number of metastases after systemic therapy. 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging is recommended for baseline staging and for restaging after systemic therapy when local treatment is considered. For patients with synchronous OMD or metachronous OMD and a DFI ≤ 2 years, recommended treatment consists of systemic therapy followed by restaging to assess suitability for local treatment. For patients with metachronous OMD and DFI &gt; 2 years, upfront local treatment is additionally recommended. Discussion: These multidisciplinary European clinical practice guidelines for the uniform definition, diagnosis and treatment of esophagogastric OMD can be used to standardize inclusion criteria in future clinical trials and to reduce variation in treatment.</p

REQUITE: A prospective multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing radiotherapy for breast, lung or prostate cancer

Purpose: REQUITE aimed to establish a resource for multi-national validation of models and biomarkers that predict risk of late toxicity following radiotherapy. The purpose of this article is to provide summary descriptive data. Methods: An international, prospective cohort study recruited cancer patients in 26 hospitals in eight countries between April 2014 and March 2017. Target recruitment was 5300 patients. Eligible patients had breast, prostate or lung cancer and planned potentially curable radiotherapy. Radiotherapy was prescribed according to local regimens, but centres used standardised data collection forms. Pre-treatment blood samples were collected. Patients were followed for a minimum of 12 (lung) or 24 (breast/prostate) months and summary descriptive statistics were generated. Results: The study recruited 2069 breast (99% of target), 1808 prostate (86%) and 561 lung (51%) cancer patients. The centralised, accessible database includes: physician-(47,025 forms) and patient-(54,901) reported outcomes; 11,563 breast photos; 17,107 DICOMs and 12,684 DVHs. Imputed genotype data are available for 4223 patients with European ancestry (1948 breast, 1728 prostate, 547 lung). Radiation-induced lymphocyte apoptosis (RILA) assay data are available for 1319 patients. DNA (n = 4409) and PAXgene tubes (n = 3039) are stored in the centralised biobank. Example prevalences of 2-year (1-year for lung) grade >= 2 CTCAE toxicities are 13% atrophy (breast), 3% rectal bleeding (prostate) and 27% dyspnoea (lung). Conclusion: The comprehensive centralised database and linked biobank is a valuable resource for the radiotherapy community for validating predictive models and biomarkers. Patient summary: Up to half of cancer patients undergo radiation therapy and irradiation of surrounding healthy tissue is unavoidable. Damage to healthy tissue can affect short-and long-term quality-of-life. Not all patients are equally sensitive to radiation "damage" but it is not possible at the moment to identify those who are. REQUITE was established with the aim of trying to understand more about how we could predict radiation sensitivity. The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview and summary of the data and material available. In the REQUITE study 4400 breast, prostate and lung cancer patients filled out questionnaires and donated blood. A large amount of data was collected in the same way. With all these data and samples a database and biobank were created that showed it is possible to collect this kind of information in a standardised way across countries. In the future, our database and linked biobank will be a resource for research and validation of clinical predictors and models of radiation sensitivity. REQUITE will also enable a better understanding of how many people suffer with radiotherapy toxicity