Purpose: High-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerators (MR-Linacs), linear accelerators combined with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and online adaptive workflow,... Show morePurpose: High-field magnetic resonance-linear accelerators (MR-Linacs), linear accelerators combined with a diagnostic magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner and online adaptive workflow, potentially give rise to novel online anatomic and response adaptive radiation therapy paradigms. The first high-field (1.5T) MR-Linac received regulatory approval in late 2018, and little is known about clinical use, patient tolerability of daily high-field MRI, and toxicity of treatments. Herein we report the initial experience within the MOMENTUM Study (NCT04075305), a prospective international registry of the MRLinac Consortium. Methods and Materials: Patients were included between February 2019 and October 2020 at 7 institutions in 4 countries. We used descriptive statistics to describe the patterns of care, tolerability (the percentage of patients discontinuing their course early), and safety (grade 3-5 Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events v.5 acute toxicity within 3 months after the end of treatment). Results: A total 943 patients participated in the MOMENTUM Study, 702 of whom had complete baseline data at the time of this analysis. Patients were primarily male (79%) with a median age of 68 years (range, 22-93) and were treated for 39 different indications. The most frequent indications were prostate (40%), oligometastatic lymph node (17%), brain (12%), and rectal (10%) cancers. The median number of fractions was 5 (range, 1-35). Six patients discontinued MR-Linac treatments, but none due to an inability to tolerate repeated high-field MRI. Of the 415 patients with complete data on acute toxicity at 3 month follow-up, 18 (4%) patients experienced grade 3 acute toxicity related to radiation. No grade 4 or 5 acute toxicity related to radiation was observed. Conclusions: In the first 21 months of our study, patterns of care were diverse with respect to clinical utilization, body sites, and radiation prescriptions. No patient discontinued treatment due to inability to tolerate daily high-field MRI scans, and the acute radiation toxicity experience was encouraging. (c) 2021 Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Witjes, J.A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Horwich, A. 2020
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts prior to voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), and 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these statements, 33 (28%) achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease, and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder canceir management until a time when further evidence is available to guide our approach.Patient summary: This report summarises findings from an international, multistake-holder project organised by the EAU and ESMO. In this project, a steering committee identified areas of bladder cancer management where there is currently no good-quality evidence to guide treatment decisions. From this, they developed a series of proposed statements, 71 of which achieved consensus by a large group of experts in the field of bladder cancer. It is anticipated that these statements will provide further guidance to health care professionals and could help improve patient outcomes until a time when good-quality evidence is available. (C) 2019 European Society of Medical Oncology and European Association of Urology. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
Horwich, A.; Babjuk, M.; Bellmunt, J.; Bruins, H.M.; Reijke, T.M. de; Santis, M. de; ... ; Witjes, J.A. 2019
Background: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To... Show moreBackground: Although guidelines exist for advanced and variant bladder cancer management, evidence is limited/conflicting in some areas and the optimal approach remains controversial.Objective: To bring together a large multidisciplinary group of experts to develop consensus statements on controversial topics in bladder cancer management.Design: A steering committee compiled proposed statements regarding advanced and variant bladder cancer management which were assessed by 113 experts in a Delphi survey. Statements not reaching consensus were reviewed; those prioritised were revised by a panel of 45 experts before voting during a consensus conference.Setting: Online Delphi survey and consensus conference.Participants: The European Association of Urology (EAU), the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), experts in bladder cancer management.Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Statements were ranked by experts according to their level of agreement: 1-3 (disagree), 4-6 (equivocal), 7-9 (agree). A priori (level 1) consensus was defined as >= 70% agreement and <= 15% disagreement, or vice versa. In the Delphi survey, a second analysis was restricted to stakeholder group(s) considered to have adequate expertise relating to each statement (to achieve level 2 consensus).Results and limitations: Overall, 116 statements were included in the Delphi survey. Of these, 33 (28%) statements achieved level 1 consensus and 49 (42%) statements achieved level 1 or 2 consensus. At the consensus conference, 22 of 27 (81%) statements achieved consensus. These consensus statements provide further guidance across a broad range of topics, including the management of variant histologies, the role/limitations of prognostic biomarkers in clinical decision making, bladder preservation strategies, modern radiotherapy techniques, the management of oligometastatic disease and the evolving role of checkpoint inhibitor therapy in metastatic disease.Conclusions: These consensus statements provide further guidance on controversial topics in advanced and variant bladder cancer management until a time where further evidence is available to guide our approach. Show less
