Implementation of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules for breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic in the Netherlands.

Background and purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in an accelerated recommendation to use five-fraction radiotherapy schedules, according to the FAST- and FAST-Forward trial. In this study, trends in the use of different radiotherapy schedules in the Netherlands were studied, as well as the likelihood of receiving five fractions. Materials and methods: Data from the NABON Breast Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy and Netherlands Cancer Registry was used. Women receiving radiotherapy for their primary invasive breast cancer or DCIS between 01-01-2020 and 31-12-2021 were included. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between patient-, tumour-, treatment-, and radiotherapy institution-related characteristics and the likelihood of receiving five fractions in tumours meeting the FAST and FAST-Forward criteria. Results: Detailed information about radiotherapy treatment was available for 9,392 tumours. Shortly after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, i.e. April 2020, 19% of the tumours being treated with radiotherapy received five fractions of 5.2 or 5.7 Gray (Gy). While only 3% of the tumours received five fractions in March 2020. The usage of five fractions increased to 26% in December 2021. Partial breast irradiation, compared to whole breast irradiation, was significantly associated with the administration of five fractions, as well as radiotherapy delivered in an academic radiotherapy institution compared to an independent institution. Conclusion: The start of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with the early use of ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules. After publication of the trials, and mainly after the recommendation by the national radiotherapy society, the implementation further increased. These schedules were not yet used in all patients meeting the eligibility criteria for the FAST- or FAST-Forward trial.

Cosmetic Results and Side Effects of Accelerated Partial-Breast Irradiation Versus Whole-Breast Irradiation for Low-Risk Invasive Carcinoma of the Breast: The Randomized Phase III IRMA Trial.

PURPOSE: The results in terms of side effects vary among the published accelerated partial-breast irradiation (APBI) studies. Here, we report the 5-year results for cosmetic outcomes and toxicity of the IRMA trial. METHODS: We ran this randomized phase III trial in 35 centers. Women with stage I-IIA breast cancer treated with breast-conserving surgery, age ≥ 49 years, were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either whole-breast irradiation (WBI) or external beam radiation therapy APBI (38.5 Gy/10 fraction twice daily). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary end point was ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence. We hereby present the analysis of the secondary outcomes, cosmesis, and normal tissue toxicity. All side effects were graded with the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group/European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Radiation Morbidity Scoring Schema. Analysis was performed with both intention-to-treat and as-treated approaches. RESULTS: Between March 2007 and March 2019, 3,309 patients were randomly assigned to 1,657 WBI and 1,652 APBI; 3,225 patients comprised the intention-to-treat population (1,623 WBI and 1,602 APBI). At a median follow-up of 5.6 (interquartile range, 4.0-8.4) years, adverse cosmesis in the APBI patients was higher than that in the WBI patients at 3 years (12.7% v 9.2%; P = .009) and at 5 years (14% v 9.8%; P = .012). Late soft tissue toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 2.8% APBI v 1% WBI, P < .0001) and late bone toxicity (grade ≥ 3: 1.1% APBI v 0% WBI, P < .0001) were significantly higher in the APBI arm. There were no significant differences in late skin and lung toxicities. CONCLUSION: External beam radiation therapy-APBI with a twice-daily IRMA schedule was associated with increased rates of late moderate soft tissue and bone toxicities, with a slight decrease in patient-reported cosmetic outcomes at 5 years when compared with WBI, although overall toxicity was in an acceptable range.

Transparency in quality of radiotherapy for breast cancer in the Netherlands: a national registration of radiotherapy-parameters.

BACKGROUND: Radiotherapy (RT) is part of the curative treatment of approximately 70% of breast cancer (BC) patients. Wide practice variation has been reported in RT dose, fractionation and its treatment planning for BC. To decrease this practice variation, it is essential to first gain insight into the current variation in RT treatment between institutes. This paper describes the development of the NABON Breast Cancer Audit-Radiotherapy (NBCA-R), a structural nationwide registry of BC RT data of all BC patients treated with at least surgery and RT. METHODS: A working group consisting of representatives of the BC Platform of the Dutch Radiotherapy Society selected a set of dose volume parameters deemed to be surrogate outcome parameters, both for tumour control and toxicity. Two pilot studies were carried out in six RT institutes. In the first pilot study, data were manually entered into a secured web-based system. In the second pilot study, an automatic Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) RT upload module was created and tested. RESULTS: The NBCA-R dataset was created by selecting RT parameters describing given dose, target volumes, coverage and homogeneity, and dose to organs at risk (OAR). Entering the data was made mandatory for all Dutch RT departments. In the first pilot study (N = 1093), quite some variation was already detected. Application of partial breast irradiation varied from 0 to 17% between the 6 institutes and boost to the tumour bed from 26.5 to 70.2%. For patients treated to the left breast or chest wall only, the average mean heart dose (MHD) varied from 0.80 to 1.82 Gy; for patients treated to the breast/chest wall only, the average mean lung dose (MLD) varied from 2.06 to 3.3 Gy. In the second pilot study 6 departments implemented the DICOM-RT upload module in daily practice. Anonymised data will be available for researchers via a FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) framework. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a set of RT parameters and implemented registration for all Dutch BC patients. With the use of an automated upload module registration burden will be minimized. Based on the data in the NBCA-R analyses of the practice variation will be done, with the ultimate aim to improve quality of BC RT. Trial registration Retrospectively registered.

Bladder filling variation during radiation treatment of prostate cancer: can the use of a bladder ultrasound scanner and biofeedback optimize bladder filling?

PURPOSE: To investigate the use of a bladder ultrasound scanner in achieving a better reproducible bladder filling during irradiation of pelvic tumors, specifically prostate cancer. METHODS AND MATERIALS: First, the accuracy of the bladder ultrasound scanner relative to computed tomography was validated in a group of 26 patients. Next, daily bladder volume variation was evaluated in a group of 18 patients. Another 16 patients participated in a biofeedback protocol, aiming at a more constant bladder volume. The last objective was to study correlations between prostate motion and bladder filling, by using electronic portal imaging device data on implanted gold markers. RESULTS: A strong correlation between bladder scanner volume and computed tomography volume (r = 0.95) was found. Daily bladder volume variation was very high (1 SD = 47.2%). Bladder filling and daily variation did not significantly differ between the control and the feedback group (47.2% and 40.1%, respectively). Furthermore, no linear correlations between bladder volume variation and prostate motion were found. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows large variations in daily bladder volume. The use of a biofeedback protocol yields little reduction in bladder volume variation. Even so, the bladder scanner is an easy to use and accurate tool to register these variations.