European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) strategy 2024-2026: Growth and diversification in a rapidly changing world.

In 2019, the European Society of Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) published its 2030 Vision "Radiation Oncology, Optimal Health, For All, Together". However, in 2020, the global pandemic, coinciding with the Society's 40th anniversary, had long-term consequences on global behaviours and on the financial environment for scientific associations worldwide. In 2022, ESTRO conducted a survey among its members, revealing their strong appreciation for networking opportunities and the creation of high-quality interdisciplinary scientific content. In response to the survey findings and to address the evolving landscape following the COVID pandemic, ESTRO initiated a strategic review process to respond to, and refocus on, the opportunities and challenges ahead. This paper, marking a turning point in ESTRO's strategy for achieving its Vision 2030 in a post-pandemic era, describes the 2022-23 strategic review process, discussions, and consequent recommendations. The comprehensive strategic review process involved: (i) pre-meeting preparations with surveys and strategic documents; (ii) a carefully themed three-day retreat in Brussels incorporating a blend of plenary sessions, workshops focusing on ESTRO's role, value creation and capture, strategic objectives; and (iii) a post-retreat phase including qualitative analysis and development of action plans. The strategic review emphasized the need for adaptive tactics for scientific associations to remain current and productive in the face of changing global conditions. The development of key strategic goals for the years 2024-2026 focused on improving research impact, strengthening and diversifying ESTRO's educational offerings and fostering proactive and mutually beneficial partnerships. The Board approved these objectives, alongside prioritising digital innovation, financial sustainability, and community engagement for ESTRO's continued growth and development. In essence, ESTRO aims to advocate, empower, expand, and diversify its community, with the overarching goal of enhancing cancer care for patients in Europe, and beyond.

Hitting the Target: Developing High-quality Evidence for Proton Beam Therapy Through Randomised Controlled Trials.

The National Health Service strategy for the delivery of proton beam therapy (PBT) in the UK provides a unique opportunity to deliver high-quality evidence for PBT through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We present a summary of three UK PBT RCTs in progress, including consideration of their key design characteristics and outcome assessments, to inform and support future PBT trial development. The first three UK multicentre phase III PBT RCTs (TORPEdO, PARABLE and APPROACH), will compare PBT with photon radiotherapy for oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma, breast cancer and oligodendroglioma, respectively. All three studies were designed by multidisciplinary teams, which combined expertise from clinicians, clinical trialists and scientists with strong patient advocacy and guidance from national radiotherapy research networks and international collaborators. Consistent across all three studies is a focus on the reduction of long-term radiotherapy-related toxicities and an evaluation of patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life, which will address key uncertainties regarding the clinical benefits of PBT. Innovative translational components will provide insights into mechanisms of toxicity and help to frame the key future research questions regarding PBT. The UK radiotherapy research community is developing and delivering an internationally impactful PBT research portfolio. The combination of data from RCTs with prospectively collected data from a national PBT outcomes registry will provide an innovative, high-quality repository for PBT research and the platform to design and deliver future trials of PBT.

Ten-Year Outcomes of Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy for Oligometastatic Breast Cancer: Does Synchronous Oligometastatic Breast Cancer Benefit?

AIMS: The benefit of stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) in metachronous oligometastatic breast cancer (OMBC) has previously been described and its use in current clinical practice is established. The role of SBRT in the management of synchronous OMBC remains uncertain. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of SBRT-treated synchronous OMBC with those of SBRT-treated metachronous OMBC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of consecutive extracranial OMBC patients treated with SBRT at a single institution between 2011 and 2022. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to calculate progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival, local control and distant control. Log-rank tests were used to test any differences. Cox regression was used for univariate and multivariate analyses to identify predictive factors. Toxicity was assessed using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5. RESULTS: In total, 74 OMBC patients with 113 lesions were analysed. The median follow-up was 20 months (range 0-98). Seventy per cent of patients presented metachronously and 30% synchronously. 30 Gy in three fractions was most commonly prescribed, resulting in a median biologically effective dose (BED at α/ß = 10) of 60 Gy (range 35.7-112.5 Gy). Forty-nine per cent of patients switched systemic therapy post-SBRT (median time to switch: 14 months, range 0-79). Two patients (2%) experienced grade 3 acute toxicities with no grade ≥4 toxicities. At 2 years overall survival was 92.4% and PFS 39.0%, local control 85.9% and distant control 37.0%. For metachronous and synchronous disease, respectively, 2-year local control rates were 86.5% and 85.8% and PFS rates were 35.3% and 48.3%. The median PFS of metachronous and synchronous disease were 18 months and 17 months, respectively (P = 0.86). Predictive factors on multivariate analysis were treated site for overall survival, change in systemic therapy post-SBRT for PFS and BED for local control. CONCLUSION: Our data confirm SBRT as a well-tolerated treatment for OMBC with excellent local control rates regardless of metachronous or synchronous presentation. There is no suggestion that survival outcomes are inferior for synchronous disease. Further prospective studies are required to validate this finding.

Locoregional control and toxicity following high-dose hypofractionated and accelerated palliative radiotherapy regimens in breast cancer.

AIMS: For patients with locally advanced primary/recurrent breast cancer, radiotherapy is an effective treatment for locoregional control. 36 Gy in 6 Gy once-weekly fractions is a commonly used schedule, but there are no data comparing local control and toxicity between 36 Gy delivered once-weekly versus accelerated schedules of multiple 6 Gy fractions per week. This retrospective study compared local control rates and acute and late toxicity in patients undergoing 30-36 Gy in 6 Gy fractions over 6 weeks versus more accelerated schedules over 2-3 weeks for an unresected breast cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received 30-36 Gy in 6 Gy fractions to an unresected breast cancer ± involved lymph nodes between December 2011 and August 2020 were identified. Patients were grouped into once-weekly versus accelerated fractionation schedules. Response rates, local control and toxicity data were analysed. RESULTS: In total, 109 patients were identified. The median follow-up duration was 46 months. Forty-seven patients (43%) received once-weekly fractions and 62 patients (57%) received accelerated fractionation schedules. There were no significant differences in baseline tumour characteristics between the groups. Eighty-seven per cent of patients had an objective (complete or partial) response (81% in the once-weekly group; 91% in the accelerated group). The median time to local progression was 23.5 months overall (95% confidence interval 17.8-29.2); 23.5 months (95% confidence interval 18.8-28.1) in the once-weekly group and 19.0 months (95% confidence interval 7.0-31.1) in the accelerated group (P = 0.99). Acute toxicity of any grade occurred in 75% of patients (76% in the once-weekly group; 74% in the accelerated group) and grade 3 toxicity occurred in 7% of patients (7% in the once-weekly group; 8% in the accelerated group). There were no associations between the groups and acute or late toxicity grade (P = 0.78 and P = 0.26, respectively), although one grade 4 late toxicity (skin radionecrosis) occurred in a patient who received five fractions a week and therefore this regimen is not recommended. Study limitations included a lack of statistical power analysis, the necessary grouping of all accelerated patients for analysis and a high rate of censored data. CONCLUSION: There were no apparent differences in response rate, time to local progression or toxicity between patients who received 30-36 Gy in 6 Gy fractions once-weekly compared with twice-weekly as palliative treatment for locally advanced breast cancer. This regimen appears to be a safe alternative and may be preferred by patients.

The role of the radiation therapy breast boost in the 2020s.

Given that most local relapses of breast cancer occur proximal to the original location of the primary, the delivery of additional radiation dose to breast tissue that contained the original primary cancer (known as a "boost") has been a standard of care for some decades. In the context of falling relapse rates, however, it is an appropriate time to re-evaluate the role of the boost. This article reviews the evolution of the radiotherapy boost in breast cancer, discussing who to boost and how to boost in the 2020s, and arguing that, in both cases, less is more.

European Society of Cardiology quality indicators for the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in cancer treatment.

AIMS: To develop quality indicators (QIs) for the evaluation of the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity. METHODS AND RESULTS: We followed the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) methodology for QI development which comprises (i) identifying the key domains of care for the prevention and management of cancer therapy-related cardiovascular toxicity in patients on cancer treatment, (ii) performing a systematic review of the literature to develop candidate QIs, and (iii) selecting of the final set of QIs using a modified Delphi process. Work was undertaken in parallel with the writing of the 2022 ESC Guidelines on Cardio-Oncology and in collaboration with the European Haematology Association, the European Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the International Cardio-Oncology Society. In total, 5 main and 9 secondary QIs were selected across five domains of care: (i) Structural framework, (ii) Baseline cardiovascular risk assessment, (iii) Cancer therapy related cardiovascular toxicity, (iv) Predictors of outcomes, and (v) Monitoring of cardiovascular complications during cancer therapy. CONCLUSION: We present the ESC Cardio-Oncology QIs with their development process and provide an overview of the scientific rationale for their selection. These indicators are aimed at quantifying and improving the adherence to guideline-recommended clinical practice and improving patient outcomes.

A Randomised Phase II Clinical Trial Comparing the Deliverability and Acute Toxicity of Wide Tangent versus Volumetric Modulated Arc Therapy to the Breast and Internal Mammary Chain.

AIMS: Inclusion of the internal mammary chain in the radiotherapy target volume (IMC-RT) improves disease-free and overall survival in higher risk breast cancer patients, but increases radiation doses to heart and lungs. Dosimetric data show that either modified wide-tangential fields (WT) or volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) together with [AQ1]voluntary deep inspiration breath hold (vDIBH) keep mean heart doses below 4 Gy in most patients. However, the impact on departmental resources has not yet been documented. This phase II clinical trial compared the time taken to deliver IMC-RT using either WT and vDIBH or VMAT and vDIBH, together with planning time, dosimetry, set-up reproducibility and toxicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Left-sided breast cancer patients requiring IMC-RT were randomised to receive either WT(vDIBH) or VMAT radiotherapy. The primary outcome was treatment time, powered to detect a minimum difference of 75 min (5 min/fraction) between techniques. The population mean displacement, systematic error and random error for cone beam computed tomography chest wall matches in three directions of movement were calculated. Target volume and organ at risk doses were compared between groups. Side-effects, including skin (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group), lung and oesophageal toxicity (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v 4.03) rates, were compared between the groups over 3 months. Patient-reported outcome measures, including shoulder toxicity at baseline, 6 months and 1 year, were compared. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients were recruited from a single UK centre between February 2017 and January 2018. The mean (standard deviation) total treatment time per fraction for VMAT treatments was 13.2 min (1.7 min) compared with 28.1 min (3.3 min) for WT(vDIBH). There were no statistically significant differences in patient set-up errors in between groups. The average mean heart dose for WT(vDIBH) was 2.6 Gy compared with 3.4 Gy for VMAT(vDIBH) (P = 0.13). The mean ipsilateral lung V17Gy was 32.8% in the WT(vDIBH) group versus 34.4% in the VMAT group (P = 0.2). The humeral head (mean dose 16.8 Gy versus 2.8 Gy), oesophagus (maximum dose 37.3 Gy versus 20.1 Gy) and thyroid (mean dose 22.0 Gy versus 11.2 Gy) all received a statistically significantly higher dose in the VMAT group. There were no statistically significant differences in skin, lung or oesophageal toxicity within 3 months of treatment. Patient-reported outcomes of shoulder toxicity, pain, fatigue, breathlessness and breast symptoms were similar between groups at 1 year. CONCLUSION: VMAT(vDIBH) and WT(vDIBH) are feasible options for locoregional breast radiotherapy including the IMC. VMAT improves nodal coverage and delivers treatment more quickly, resulting in less breath holds for the patient. This is at the cost of increased dose to some non-target tissues. The latter does not appear to translate into increased toxicity in this small study.

How Low Can You Go? The Radiobiology of Hypofractionation.

Hypofractionated radical radiotherapy is now an accepted standard of care for tumour sites such as prostate and breast cancer. Much research effort is being directed towards more profoundly hypofractionated (ultrahypofractionated) schedules, with some reaching UK standard of care (e.g. adjuvant breast). Hypofractionation exerts varying influences on each of the major clinical end points of radiotherapy studies: acute toxicity, late toxicity and local control. This review will discuss these effects from the viewpoint of the traditional 5 Rs of radiobiology, before considering non-canonical radiobiological effects that may be relevant to ultrahypofractionated radiotherapy. The principles outlined here may assist the reader in their interpretation of the wealth of clinical data presented in the tumour site-specific articles in this special issue.

From 25 Fractions to Five: How Hypofractionation has Revolutionised Adjuvant Breast Radiotherapy.

There is a sound empirical basis for hypofractionation in radiotherapy for breast cancer. This article reviews the radiobiological implications of hypofractionation in breast cancer derived from a series of clinical trials that began when 50 Gy in 25 fractions over 5 weeks was commonplace. These trials led first to 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks and, subsequently, to 26 Gy in five fractions over 1 week being adopted as standards of care for many patients prescribed whole- or partial-breast radiotherapy after primary surgery.

Three-dimensional simulation of aesthetic outcome from breast-conserving surgery compared with viewing photographs or standard care: randomized clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Over half of women with surgically managed breast cancer in the UK undergo breast-conserving treatment (BCT). While photographs are shown prior to reconstructive surgery or complex oncoplastic procedures, standard practice prior to breast conservation is to simply describe the likely aesthetic changes. Patients have expressed the desire for more personalized information about likely appearance after surgery. The hypothesis was that viewing a three-dimensional (3D) simulation improves patients' confidence in knowing their likely aesthetic outcome after surgery. METHODS: A randomized, controlled trial of 117 women planning unilateral BCT was undertaken. The randomization was three-way: standard of care (verbal description alone, control group), viewing two-dimensional (2D) photographs, or viewing a 3D simulation before surgery. The primary endpoint was the comparison between groups' median answer on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for the question administered before surgery: 'How confident are you that you know how your breasts are likely to look after treatment?' RESULTS: The median VAS in the control group was 5.2 (i.q.r. 2.6-7.8); 8.0 (i.q.r. 5.7-8.7) for 2D photography, and 8.9 (i.q.r. 8.2-9.5) for 3D simulation. There was a significant difference between groups (P < 0.010) with post-hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrating a statistically significant difference between 3D simulation and both standard care and viewing 2D photographs (P < 0.010 and P = 0.012, respectively). CONCLUSION: This RCT has demonstrated that women who viewed an individualized 3D simulation of likely aesthetic outcome for BCT were more confident going into surgery than those who received standard care or who were shown 2D photographs of other women. The impact on longer-term satisfaction with outcome remains to be determined.Registration number: NCT03250260 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Most women with breast cancer are able to have an operation to remove the cancer while preserving the breast ('lumpectomy'). Whilst cancer control is the most important goal, appearance after surgery has been shown to affect long-term quality of life and is considered when planning treatment. Currently, surgeons simply describe the likely changes in appearance and, for more complex procedures, photographs of other women are shown. Patients themselves have indicated they would like more information regarding the likely changes to their breast after treatment. The authors have developed a way to simulate appearance following lumpectomy and radiotherapy using three-dimensional (3D) photographs. The study invited women undergoing lumpectomy to be assigned at random to one of three groups receiving standard care (discussion), a two-dimensional photograph, or the 3D simulation before their operation. The authors have demonstrated that showing a woman her simulation prior to surgery improves confidence going into treatment.

Five-fraction Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer: FAST-Forward to Implementation.

INTRODUCTION: The phase 3 FAST-Forward trial reported outcomes for 26 and 27 Gy schedules delivered in 5 fractions over 1 week versus 40 Gy in 15 fractions over 3 weeks in 4000 patients. We discuss concerns raised by the radiotherapy community in relation to implementing this schedule. IPSILATERAL BREAST TUMOUR RELAPSE (IBTR): Published estimated 5-year IBTR with 95% CI after 40 Gy in 15 fractions was 2.1% (95% CI 1.4-3.1), 1.7% (1.2-1.6) after 27 Gy and 1.4% (0.2-2.2) after 26 Gy, emphatically showing non-inferiority of the 5-fraction regimens. Subgroup analyses comparing IBTR in 26 Gy versus 40 Gy show no evidence of differential effect regarding age, grade, pathological tumour size, nodal status, tumour bed boost, adjuvant chemotherapy, HER2 status and triple negative status. The number of events in these analyses is small and results should be interpreted with caution. There was only 1 IBTR event post-mastectomy. NORMAL TISSUE EFFECTS: The 26 Gy schedule, on the basis of similar NTE to 40 Gy in 15 fractions, is the recommended regimen for clinical implementation. There is a low absolute rate of moderate/marked NTE, these are predominantly moderate not severe change. Subgroup analyses comparing clinician-assessed moderate or marked adverse effect for 26 Gy versus 40 Gy show no evidence of differential effects according to age, breast size, surgical deficit, tumour bed boost, or adjuvant chemotherapy. RADIOBIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS: The design of the FAST-Forward trial does not control for time-related effects, and the ability to interpret clinical outcomes in terms of underlying biology is limited. There could conceivably be a time-effect for tumour control. A slight reduction in α/ß estimate for the late normal tissue effects of test regimens might be a chance effect, but if real could reflect fewer consequential late effects due to lower rates of moist desquamation. CONCLUSION: The 26 Gy 5-fraction daily regimen for breast radiotherapy can be implemented now.

Challenges in the treatment of breast cancer brain metastases: evidence, unresolved questions, and a practical algorithm.

Breast cancer is the leading cause of brain metastases in women. Large randomized clinical trials that have evaluated local therapies in patients with brain metastases include patients with brain metastases from a variety of cancer types. The incidence of brain metastases in the breast cancer population continues to grow, which is, aside from the rising breast cancer incidence, mainly attributable to improvements in systemic therapies leading to more durable control of extracranial metastatic disease and prolonged survival. The management of breast cancer brain metastases remains challenging, even more so with the continued advancement of local and highly effective systemic therapies. For most patients, a metastases-directed initial approach (i.e., radiation, surgery) represents the most appropriate initial therapy. Treatment should be based on multidisciplinary team discussions and a shared decision with the patients taking into account the risks and benefits of each therapeutic modality with the goal of prolonging survival while maintaining quality of life. In this narrative review, a multidisciplinary group of experts will address challenging questions in the context of current scientific literature and propose a therapeutic algorithm for breast cancer patients with brain metastases.

A review of permanent marking for radiotherapy in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: This paper presents the results of a survey of the routine use of permanent marks for radiotherapy in the UK. This was undertaken to provide an overview of current practice. Permanent marks are a somewhat invasive procedure, and should be subject to scrutiny and judicious application. METHOD: The authors reviewed the literature on international radiotherapy permanent marking practice. Common themes that emerged were the psychology of permanent marking and ink-type considerations, current practice and training, and safety. These were used to develop a questionnaire in order to form an overview of the use of marks nationally, and to identify any recurrent issues. The questionnaire also sought information regarding locations and numbers of permanent marks used for common treatment sites. The survey was sent to 71 departments in the UK using email. RESULTS: 70% of departments responded. 62% of departments reported patients who had refused permanent marks. The reasons for refusal varied. India or drawing ink was used in 49 of the 51 departments (96%). The most common teaching method of tattooing involved combined observation and verbal coaching. Most departments had a written procedure for tattooing, but some did not. Although sharps injuries were rare, they were documented. CONCLUSION: Most departments in the UK had encountered patient refusal of permanent marks, with breast patients representing the largest group which declined. There is variation in practice throughout the UK, and the equipment used is not specialised for tattooing purposes. Sharps injuries, although rare, do occur, and training methods are not consistent. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The requirement for national guidelines is posited. Further investigation into the need for permanent marks in an era of state-of-the-art imaging technology is also required.

Evaluation of a Novel Field-placement Algorithm for Locoregional Breast Cancer Radiotherapy Including the Internal Mammary Chain.

AIMS: Irradiation of the internal mammary chain (IMC) is increasing following recently published data, but the need for formal delineation of lymph node volumes is slowing implementation in some healthcare settings. A field-placement algorithm for irradiating locoregional lymph nodes including the IMC could reduce the resource impact of introducing irradiation of the IMC. This study describes the development and evaluation of such an algorithm. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An algorithm was developed in which six points representing lymph node clinical target volume borders (based on European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology consensus nodal contouring guidelines) were placed on computed tomography-defined anatomical landmarks and used to place tangential and nodal fields. Single-centre testing in 20 cases assessed the success of the algorithm in covering planning target volumes (PTVs) and adequately sparing organs at risk. Plans derived using the points algorithm were also compared with plans generated following formal delineation of nodal PTVs, using the Wilcoxon signed rank test. Timing data for point placement were collected. Multicentre testing using the same methods was then carried out to establish whether the technique was transferable to other centres. RESULTS: Single-centre testing showed that 95% of cases met the nodal PTV coverage dose constraints (binomial probability confidence interval 75.1-99.9%) with no statistically significant reduction in mean heart dose or ipsilateral lung V17Gy associated with formal nodal delineation. In multicentre testing, 69% of cases met nodal PTV dose constraints and there was a statistically significant difference in IMC PTV coverage using the points algorithm when compared with formally delineated nodal volumes (P < 0.01). However, there was no difference in axillary level 1-4 PTV coverage (P = 0.11) with all cases meeting target volume constraints. CONCLUSIONS: The optimal strategy for breast and locoregional lymph node radiotherapy is target volume delineation. However, use of this novel points-based field-placement algorithm results in dosimetrically acceptable plans without the need for formal lymph node contouring in a single-centre setting and for the breast and level 1-4 axilla in a multicentre setting. Further quality assurance measures are needed to enable implementation of the algorithm for irradiation of the IMC in a multicentre setting.

Can Interrogation of Tumour Characteristics Lead us to Safely Omit Adjuvant Radiotherapy in Patients with Early Breast Cancer?

Adjuvant radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery has been an important component of the standard of care for early breast cancer. Improvements in breast cancer care have resulted in a substantial reduction in local relapse rates over recent decades. Although the proportional benefits of adjuvant radiotherapy are similar for different prognostic risk groups of patients, the absolute benefits depend on the risk of relapse and therefore vary considerably between prognostic groups. Radiotherapy is not without risk and for some patients at very low risk of relapse the risks of radiotherapy may outweigh the benefit, leading to potential overtreatment. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) evidence shows that omission of radiotherapy in low risk early breast cancer does not reduce overall survival or increase breast cancer mortality and local recurrences are salvageable. Despite this there has not been a change in practice regarding omission of radiotherapy. The reasons for this may include challenges in patient selection. Recent advances in immunohistochemistry and genomic profiling may improve risk stratification and the development of biomarkers to directed therapies. Several RCTs have quantified the benefit of radiotherapy in reducing local relapse. Where a treatment benefit is known but is considered to be so small not to be clinically relevant then alternatives to RCTs may be considered to answer the question of need. This is because we can assess risk against a fixed 'absolute' boundary rather than needing a randomised comparator. The prospective cohort study is an alternative to the RCT design to answer the question of need for radiotherapy. The feasibility of recruitment into biomarker-directed de-escalation studies will become apparent as more studies open. The challenge is to determine if we are able to accurately risk stratify patients and avoid unnecessary toxicity, thereby tailoring the need for adjuvant breast radiotherapy on an individual patient basis.

The UK HeartSpare Study (Stage II): Multicentre Evaluation of a Voluntary Breath-hold Technique in Patients Receiving Breast Radiotherapy.

AIMS: To evaluate the feasibility and heart-sparing ability of the voluntary breath-hold (VBH) technique in a multicentre setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited from 10 UK centres. Following surgery for early left breast cancer, patients with any heart inside the 50% isodose from a standard free-breathing tangential field treatment plan underwent a second planning computed tomography (CT) scan using the VBH technique. A separate treatment plan was prepared on the VBH CT scan and used for treatment. The mean heart, left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) and lung doses were calculated. Daily electronic portal imaging (EPI) was carried out and scanning/treatment times were recorded. The primary end point was the percentage of patients achieving a reduction in mean heart dose with VBH. Population systematic (Σ) and random errors (σ) were estimated. Within-patient comparisons between techniques used Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: In total, 101 patients were recruited during 2014. Primary end point data were available for 93 patients, 88 (95%) of whom achieved a reduction in mean heart dose with VBH. Mean cardiac doses (Gy) for free-breathing and VBH techniques, respectively, were: heart 1.8 and 1.1, LAD 12.1 and 5.4, maximum LAD 35.4 and 24.1 (all P<0.001). Population EPI-based displacement data showed Σ =+1.3-1.9 mm and σ=1.4-1.8 mm. Median CT and treatment session times were 21 and 22 min, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The VBH technique is confirmed as effective in sparing heart tissue and is feasible in a multicentre setting.

Living with invisible illness: social support experiences of individuals with systemic lupus erythematosus.

PURPOSE: Because symptoms are not immediately visible to others, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) is often considered an invisible illness. This invisibility can reduce the social support received from network members and adversely affect the quality of life. In the light of this, social support from formal support groups and from medical professionals can be particularly important; however, literature examining support from these sources is scarce. The purpose of this study was to explore the nature and impact of social support from medical professionals and from support groups for individuals with SLE. METHODS: Participants responded to open-ended questions on an online survey administered by Lupus UK and Lupus Group Ireland. Qualitative data from 133 participants (77% of respondents) were analysed. RESULTS: Thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes: invisibility, inadequate care, and validation. Respondents felt that their SLE was invisible to social ties and to medical professionals. In addition, treatment and organisational factors in health care contributed to the sense of inadequate care. Finally, validation was derived from informational and emotional support from both support groups, and from some medical professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that individuals with SLE have mixed experiences in terms of contact with medical professionals and involvement with support groups. Furthermore, low public awareness of lupus appears to contribute to feelings of invisibility for patients, leading to loneliness and isolation. Medical professionals might benefit from skills training in terms of managing the psychosocial consequences of lupus.

Cardiac Side-effects From Breast Cancer Radiotherapy.

Breast cancer radiotherapy reduces the risk of cancer recurrence and death. However, it usually involves some radiation exposure of the heart and analyses of randomised trials have shown that it can increase the risk of heart disease. Estimates of the absolute risks of radiation-related heart disease are needed to help oncologists plan each individual woman's treatment. The risk for an individual woman varies according to her estimated cardiac radiation dose and her background risk of ischaemic heart disease in the absence of radiotherapy. When it is known, this risk can then be compared with the absolute benefit of the radiotherapy. At present, many UK cancer centres are already giving radiotherapy with mean heart doses of less than 3 Gy and for most women the benefits of the radiotherapy will probably far outweigh the risks. Technical approaches to minimising heart dose in breast cancer radiotherapy include optimisation of beam angles, use of multileaf collimator shielding, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, treatment in a prone position, treatment in deep inspiration (including the use of breath-hold and gating techniques), proton therapy and partial breast irradiation. The multileaf collimator is suitable for many women with upper pole left breast cancers, but for women with central or lower pole cancers, breath-holding techniques are now recommended in national UK guidelines. Ongoing work aims to identify ways of irradiating pan-regional lymph nodes that are effective, involve minimal exposure of organs at risk and are feasible to plan, deliver and verify. These will probably include wide tangent-based field-in-field intensity-modulated radiotherapy or arc radiotherapy techniques in combination with deep inspiratory breath-hold, and proton beam irradiation for women who have a high predicted heart dose from intensity-modulated radiotherapy.