Background and purposeAccurate delineation of the primary tumour is vital to the success of radiotherapy and even more important for successful boost strategies, aiming for improved local control... Show moreBackground and purposeAccurate delineation of the primary tumour is vital to the success of radiotherapy and even more important for successful boost strategies, aiming for improved local control in oesophageal cancer patients. Therefore, the aim was to assess delineation variability of the gross tumour volume (GTV) between CT and combined PET-CT in oesophageal cancer patients in a multi-institutional study.Materials and methodsTwenty observers from 14 institutes delineated the primary tumour of 6 cases on CT and PET-CT fusion. The delineated volumes, generalized conformity index (CIgen) and standard deviation (SD) in position of the most cranial/caudal slice over the observers were evaluated. For the central delineated region, perpendicular distance between median surface GTV and each individual GTV was evaluated as in-slice SD.ResultsAfter addition of PET, mean GTVs were significantly smaller in 3 cases and larger in 1 case. No difference in CIgen was observed (average 0.67 on CT, 0.69 on PET-CT). On CT cranial-caudal delineation variation ranged between 0.2 and 1.5 cm SD versus 0.2 and 1.3 cm SD on PET-CT. After addition of PET, the cranial and caudal variation was significantly reduced in 1 and 2 cases, respectively. The in-slice SD was on average 0.16 cm in both phases.ConclusionIn some cases considerable GTV delineation variability was observed at the cranial-caudal border. PET significantly influenced the delineated volume in four out of six cases, however its impact on observer variation was limited. Show less
Ruler, M.A.P. van; Peters, F.P.; Slingerland, M.; Fiocco, M.; Grootenboers, D.A.R.H.; Vulink, A.J.E.; ... ; Neelis, K.J. 2017
Background:For shared decision making to be successful, patients should receive sufficient information on possible benefits and harms of treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate... Show moreBackground:For shared decision making to be successful, patients should receive sufficient information on possible benefits and harms of treatment options. The aim of this study was to evaluate what information radiation oncologists provide during the decision consultation about preoperative radiotherapy with rectal cancer patients.Methods:Decision consultations of 17 radiation oncologists with 81 consecutive primary rectal cancer patients, eligible for short-course radiotherapy followed by a low-anterior resection, were audio taped. Tapes were transcribed and analysed using the ACEPP (Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences) coding scheme.Results:A median of seven benefits/harms were addressed per consultation (range, 2-13). This number ranged within and between oncologists and was not clearly associated with the patient's characteristics. A total of 30 different treatment outcomes were addressed. The effect of radiotherapy on local control was addressed in all consultations, the effect on survival in 16%. The most important adverse effects are bowel and sexual dysfunction. These were addressed in 82% and 85% of consultations, respectively; the latter significantly less often in female than in male patients. Four out of five patients did not initiate discussion on any benefits/harms.Conclusions:Our results showed considerable inconsistency between and within oncologists in information provision, which could not be explained by patient characteristics. This variation indicates a lack of clarity on which benefits/harms of radiotherapy should be discussed with newly-diagnosed patients. This suboptimal patient information hampers the process of shared decision making, in which the decision is based on each individual patients' weighing of benefits and harms.British Journal of Cancer advance online publication, 21 October 2014; doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.546 www.bjcancer.com. Show less
