The Radiation Therapist profession through the lens of new technology: A practice development paper based on the ESTRO Radiation Therapist Workshops.

Technological advances in radiation therapy impact on the role and scope of practice of the radiation therapist. The European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) recently held two workshops on this topic and this position paper reflects the outcome of this workshop, which included radiation therapists from all global regions. Workflows, quality assurance, research, IGRT and ART as well as clinical decision making are the areas of radiation therapist practice that will be highly influenced by advancing technology in the near future. This position paper captures the opportunities that this will bring to the radiation therapist profession, to the practice of radiation therapy and ultimately to patient care.

A prospective randomized study comparing two frameless immobilization systems for cranial stereotactic radiotherapy.

Introduction: The Dual Shell Encompass Fibreplast™ System (DS-Encompass) by CQ Medical™ is validated for frameless immobilization in stereotactic brain radiotherapy. An alternative mask model has been proposed with the rear shell replaced by a Moldcare® cushion (M-Encompass). To validate the use of this model in our cranial stereotactic workflow method including HyperArc™, we performed a prospective randomized study comparing inter-and intrafractional motion and patients comfort between both masks. Materials & Methods: A prospective randomized study between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was conducted involving 60 participants. Stratification between DS-Encompass and M-Encompass was carried out based on the fractionation scheme. Treatment plans were created with HyperArc™. During treatment, surface guidance was used for patient positioning and monitoring. A pre-treatment cone-beam CT (CBCT) was acquired to correct interfractional motion and a post-treatment CBCT was acquired to quantify the intrafractional motion. Patients reported comfort was analyzed with a Likert-scale at the end of the treatment. Unpaired t-tests were conducted to determine the level of significance. Results: No significant difference in interfractional translations is present. A significant difference is revealed in roll-axis rotation, where DS-Encompass allows for smaller deviations. Since interfractional motion can be corrected through daily CBCT-scans and 6D-couch corrections, they are clinically irrelevant. Intrafractional motion does not differ significantly and remains below 0.5 mm and 0.5° for both systems. There is no statistical difference in patient-reported comfort. Conclusion: We conclude that Encompass with Moldcare offers a safe alternative to Duall Shell Encompass for non-coplanar stereotactic brain radiotherapy. There is no significant difference in intrafractional motion nor difference in comfort levels.

Professional development through mentoring: Final evaluation of the pilot mentoring programme of the European society of radiotherapy and oncology.

The European SocieTy for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) organized a one-year pilot mentoring programme. At evaluation after one year, both mentors and mentees scored the programme with a median score of 9 on a scale of 10. All of the mentors indicated that they wanted to participate again as mentors.

Are offline ART decisions for NSCLC impacted by the type of dose calculation algorithm?

Introduction: Decisions for plan-adaptations may be impacted by a transitioning from one dose-calculation algorithm to another. This study examines the impact on dosimetric-triggered offline adaptation in LA-NSCLC in the context of a transition from superposition/convolution dose calculation algorithm (Type-B) to linear Boltzmann equation solver dose calculation algorithms (Type-C). Materials & Methods: Two dosimetric-triggered offline adaptive treatment workflows are compared in a retrospective planning study on 30 LA-NSCLC patients. One workflow uses a Type-B dose calculation algorithm and the other uses Type-C. Treatment plans were re-calculated on the anatomy of a mid-treatment synthetic-CT utilizing the same algorithm utilized for pre-treatment planning. Assessment for plan-adaptation was evaluated through a decision model based on target coverage and OAR constraint violation. The impact of algorithm during treatment planning was controlled for by recalculating the Type-B plan with Type-C. Results: In the Type-B approach, 13 patients required adaptation due to OAR-constraint violations, while 15 patients required adaptation in the Type-C approach. For 8 out of 30 cases, the decision to adapt was opposite in both approaches. None of the patients in our dataset encountered CTV-target underdosage that necessitated plan-adaptation. Upon recalculating the Type-B approach with the Type-C algorithm, it was shown that 10 of the original Type-B plans revealed clinically relevant dose reductions (≥3%) on the CTV in their original plans. This re-calculation identified 21 plans in total that required ART. Discussion: In our study, nearly one-third of the cases would have a different decision for plan-adaption when utilizing Type-C instead of Type-B. There was no substantial increase in the total number of plan-adaptations for LA-NSCLC. However, Type-C is more sensitive to altered anatomy during treatment compared to Type-B. Recalculating Type-B plans with the Type-C algorithm revealed an increase from 13 to 21 cases triggering ART.

Patient-reported outcomes versus proxy-reported outcomes in supportive and palliative care: a summary of recent literature.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Patient-reported outcomes are one of the most valuable clinical outcome measures. In palliative care, however, they are often difficult to retrieve. Therefore, proxy-reported outcomes are sometimes used as a surrogate. As there have been concerns about the validity of these by-proxy reports, the authors reviewed the most recent literature for the most recent insights in using proxy-reported outcomes. RECENT FINDINGS: The authors found very little new research on patient versus proxy-reported outcomes in palliative care. The results of the studies the authors found seem to correlate with older evidence concluding that there are many factors influencing a discrepancy between patients' outcomes and how this is perceived by their proxies, such as the well-being paradox, caregiver burden, and the proxies' own mental well-being. SUMMARY: While proxies' opinions and knowledge of the patients' values are important factors to consider, proxy-reported outcomes should be used with caution and viewed as a complementary perspective rather than a true substitute for the individual patient's outcome.