Advantages of TRUS-based delineation for high-dose-rate prostate brachytherapy planning.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the variability of prostate contours delineated on computed tomography (CT) and transrectal ultrasound (TRUS). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A TRUS-based high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy procedure was introduced in 2016 in our center. The first thirty patients were additionally imaged with CT immediately after the treatment. In 2018, four different radiation oncologists (ROs: 1, 2, 3, 4) contoured the prostate on both modalities. A volume comparison was performed between CT and TRUS imaging. Using prostate gold fiducial makers, a rigid registration between CT and TRUS was done in 20 of the 30 patients studied. Jaccard index (JI) was computed to evaluate the inter-observer volume delineation agreement. RESULTS: The ratio of TRUS/CT volumes was 0.82 (95% CI: 0.79-0.87%). The mean JI was 87% for CT and 92% for TRUS, when comparing all four ROs; CT and TRUS JIs were significantly different (p < 0.001). The mean JI for the prostate on CT was significantly more consistent (p < 0.001) when comparing RO1, 2, and 3 together (RO1-2, RO1-3, and RO2-3; mean = 89%) than when comparing RO4 (newest to clinical practice) to others (RO1-4, RO2-4, and RO3-4; mean = 85%). For TRUS planning, the mean JI was not significantly different (p > 0.05) when comparing all ROs. CONCLUSIONS: The inter-observer and intra-observer variability were statistically significantly smaller on TRUS compared to CT-based planning, despite varying ROs clinical experiences. The superior soft tissue contrast offered by TRUS obviates the effect of the ROs experience on prostate contour volumes and enables more reproducible prostate delineation.

Permanent breast seed implant for partial breast radiotherapy after partial mastectomy for favorable breast cancer: Technique, results, and applications to various seroma presentations.

PURPOSE: Adjuvant partial breast radiotherapy is the standard of care for early-stage favorable breast cancer. We report dosimetry, acute and late tolerance for 67 permanent breast seed implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From July 2012 to October 2018, 67 postmenopausal women with unifocal pT1pN0 invasive ductal or ductal carcinoma in situ received partial breast radiotherapy using stranded Pd-103 seeds after breast-conserving surgery, delivering 90 Gy to the seroma + margin (1.25-1.5 cm), planned with computed tomography simulation and performed as an ultrasound-guided outpatient procedure. The planning and postimplant computed tomography images were fused for seroma delineation for postimplant dosimetry. Evaluations were performed at 1, 2, 6, and 12 months and then annually. RESULTS: Although patient acceptance is high, only 40% met technical requirements of seroma volume, location, and visibility. For 67 patients, the median seroma volume was 6.6 cc, PTV 61 cc, and number of needles 18. In day 0 dosimetry, median seroma D90 dose was 132 Gy; seroma + 5 mm, 106 Gy; and seroma + 10 mm, 80 Gy. Peak reaction at 6 weeks is limited to the implant site: 51% grade 1 erythema and 12% focal desquamation. Late reactions (>2 years) are generally minimal: 35% no sequelae, 43% localized fibrosis, 20% mild telangiectasia (6% moderate but asymptomatic), 22% contour change. At minimum 6-month follow-up, 94% were "very or totally satisfied." Recurrences (median follow-up: 3.3 years) were one in breast (different quadrant) and 2 contralateral. Three patients have had biopsies of fibrosis, all negative for malignancy. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience with permanent breast seed implant is favorable with a high patient acceptance and satisfaction, excellent early efficacy, and very satisfactory cosmesis.

Talking about treatment benefits, harms, and what matters to patients in radiation oncology: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is associated with improved patient outcomes in radiation oncology. Our study aimed to capture how shared decision-making practices-namely, communicating potential harms and benefits and discussing what matters to patients-occur in usual care. METHODS: We invited a convenience sample of clinicians and patients in a radiation oncology clinic to participate in a mixed methods study. Prior to consultations, clinicians and patients completed self-administered questionnaires. We audio-recorded consultations and conducted qualitative content analysis. Patients completed a questionnaire immediately post-consultation about their recall and perceptions. RESULTS: 11 radiation oncologists, 4 residents, 14 nurses, and 40 patients (55% men; mean age 64, standard deviation or SD 9) participated. Patients had a variety of cancers; 30% had been referred for palliative radiotherapy. During consultations (mean length 45 min, SD 16), clinicians presented a median of 8 potential harms (interquartile range 6-11), using quantitative estimates 17% of the time. Patients recalled significantly fewer harms (median recall 2, interquartile range 0-3, t(38) = 9.3, p < .001). Better recall was associated with discussing potential harms with a nurse after seeing the physician (odds ratio 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.3-67.0, p = .04.) Clinicians initiated 63% of discussions of harms and benefits while patients and families initiated 69% of discussions about values and preferences (Chi-squared(1) = 37.8, p < .001). 56% of patients reported their clinician asked what mattered to them. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology clinics may wish to use interprofessional care and initiate more discussions about what matters to patients to heed Jain's (2014) reminder that, "a patient isn't a disease with a body attached but a life into which a disease has intruded."

How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

OBJECTIVE: To assess how often risk communication and values clarification occur in routine family medicine practice and to explore factors associated with their occurrence. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five university-affiliated family medicine teaching clinics across Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one health professionals (55% physicians, 35% residents, 10% nurses or dietitians) and 238 patients (76% women; age range 16 to 82 years old). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence or absence of risk communication and values clarification during visits in which decisions were made was determined. Factors associated with the primary outcome (both competencies together) were identified. The OPTION5 (observing patient involvement in decision making) instrument was used to validate the dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The presence of risk communication and values clarification during visits was associated with OPTION5 scores (area under the curve of 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86, P < .001). Both core competencies of shared decision making occurred in 150 of 238 (63%) visits (95% CI 54% to 70%). Such an occurrence was more likely when the visit included discussion about beginning something new, treatment options, or postponing a decision, as well as when health professionals preferred a collaborative decision-making style and when the visit included more decisions or was longer. Alone, risk communication occurred in 203 of 238 (85%) visits (95% CI 82% to 96%) and values clarification in 162 of 238 (68%) visits (95% CI 61% to 75%). CONCLUSION: Health professionals in family medicine are making an effort to engage patients in shared decision making in routine daily practice, especially when there is time to do so. The greatest potential for improvement might lie in values clarification; that is, discussing what matters to patients and families.

Intermittent vs Continuous Androgen Deprivation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: Androgen deprivation is the standard therapy for patients with advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. However, this treatment causes adverse effects, alters quality of life, and may lead to castration-resistant disease. Intermittent androgen deprivation has been studied as an alternative. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and tolerability of intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA SOURCES: We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Biosis, National Technical Information Service, OpenSIGLE, and Google Scholar from inception of each database through March 2014. References from published guidelines, reviews, and other relevant articles were also considered. STUDY SELECTION: We selected randomized clinical trials comparing intermittent vs continuous androgen deprivation therapy in patients with prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated hazard ratios (HRs) with the inverse variance method and risk ratios with the Mantel-Haenszel method, using random effect models. A noninferiority analysis was conducted for overall survival with a margin of 1.15 for the upper boundary of the HR. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were overall survival and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were cancer-specific survival, progression-free survival, time to castration resistance, skeletal-related events, and adverse effects. RESULTS: From 10 510 references, we included 22 articles from 15 trials (6856 patients) published between 2000 and 2013. All but 1 study had an unclear or high risk of bias. We observed no significant difference between intermittent and continuous therapy for overall survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.93-1.11; 8 trials, 5352 patients), cancer-specific survival (HR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.87-1.19; 5 trials, 3613 patients), and progression-free survival (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.84-1.05; 4 trials, 1774 patients). There was minimal difference in patients' self-reported quality of life between the 2 interventions. Most trials observed an improvement in physical and sexual functioning with intermittent therapy. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Intermittent androgen deprivation was not inferior to continuous therapy with respect to the overall survival. Some quality-of-life criteria seemed improved with intermittent therapy. Intermittent androgen deprivation can be considered as an alternative option in patients with recurrent or metastatic prostate cancer.