Background For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We... Show moreBackground For cancer patients to effectively engage in decision making, they require comprehensive and understandable information regarding treatment options and their associated outcomes. We developed an online prediction tool and supporting communication skills training to assist healthcare providers (HCPs) in this complex task. This study aims to assess the impact of this combined intervention (prediction tool and training) on the communication practices of HCPs when discussing treatment options. Methods We conducted a multicenter intervention trial using a pragmatic stepped wedge design (NCT04232735). Standardized Patient Assessments (simulated consultations) using cases of esophageal and gastric cancer patients, were performed before and after the combined intervention (March 2020 to July 2022). Audio recordings were analyzed using an observational coding scale, rating all utterances of treatment outcome information on the primary outcome-precision of provided outcome information-and on secondary outcomes-such as: personalization, tailoring and use of visualizations. Pre vs. post measurements were compared in order to assess the effect of the intervention. Findings 31 HCPs of 11 different centers in the Netherlands participated. The tool and training significantly affected the precision of the overall communicated treatment outcome information (p = 0.001, median difference 6.93, IQR (-0.32 to 12.44)). In the curative setting, survival information was significantly more precise after the intervention (p = 0.029). In the palliative setting, information about side effects was more precise (p < 0.001). Interpretation A prediction tool and communication skills training for HCPs improves the precision of treatment information on outcomes in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such interventions on communication in clinical practice and on patient-reported outcomes. Funding Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a grant from the Dutch Cancer Society (UVA 2014-7000). Copyright (c) 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Background and purposeThe apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a potential imaging biomarker for radiotherapy response, needs to be reproducible before translation into clinical use. The aim of... Show moreBackground and purposeThe apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), a potential imaging biomarker for radiotherapy response, needs to be reproducible before translation into clinical use. The aim of this study was to evaluate the multi-centre delineation- and calculation-related ADC variation and give recommendations to minimize it.Materials and methodsNine centres received identical diffusion-weighted and anatomical magnetic resonance images of different cancerous tumours (adrenal gland, pelvic oligo metastasis, pancreas, and prostate). All centres delineated the gross tumour volume (GTV), clinical target volume (CTV), and viable tumour volume (VTV), and calculated ADCs using both their local calculation methods and each of the following calculation conditions: b-values 0–500 vs. 150–500 s/mm2, region-of-interest (ROI)-based vs. voxel-based calculation, and mean vs. median. ADC variation was assessed using the mean coefficient of variation across delineations (CVD) and calculation methods (CVC). Absolute ADC differences between calculation conditions were evaluated using Friedman’s test. Recommendations for ADC calculation were formulated based on observations and discussions within the Elekta MRI-linac consortium image analysis working group.ResultsThe median (range) CVD and CVC were 0.06 (0.02–0.32) and 0.17 (0.08–0.26), respectively. The ADC estimates differed 18% between b-value sets and 4% between ROI/voxel-based calculation (p-values < 0.01). No significant difference was observed between mean and median (p = 0.64). Aligning calculation conditions between centres reduced CVC to 0.04 (0.01–0.16). CVD was comparable between ROI types.ConclusionOverall, calculation methods had a larger impact on ADC reproducibility compared to delineation. Based on the results, significant sources of variation were identified, which should be considered when initiating new studies, in particular multi-centre investigations. Show less
Kroese, T.E.; Laarhoven, H.W.M. van; Schoppman, S.F.; Deseynde, P.R.A.J.; Cutsem, E. van; Haustermans, K.; ... ; Rossum, P.S.N. van 2023
Background: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about... Show moreBackground: Local treatment improves the outcomes for oligometastatic disease (OMD, i.e. an intermediate state between locoregional and widespread disseminated disease). However, consensus about the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesopha-gogastric cancer is lacking. The aim of this study was to develop a multidisciplinary European consensus statement on the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophago-gastric cancer. Methods: In total, 65 specialists in the multidisciplinary treatment for oesophagogastric cancer from 49 expert centres across 16 European countries were requested to participate in this Del-phi study. The consensus finding process consisted of a starting meeting, 2 online Delphi ques-tionnaire rounds and an online consensus meeting. Input for Delphi questionnaires consisted of (1) a systematic review on definitions of oligometastatic oesophagogastric cancer and (2) a discussion of real-life clinical cases by multidisciplinary teams. Experts were asked to score each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. The agreement was scored to be either absent/poor (<50%), fair (50%-75%) or consensus (>75%). Results: A total of 48 experts participated in the starting meeting, both Delphi rounds, and the consensus meeting (overall response rate: 71%). OMD was considered in patients with meta-static oesophagogastric cancer limited to 1 organ with <3 metastases or 1 extra-regional lymph node station (consensus). In addition, OMD was considered in patients without pro-gression at restaging after systemic therapy (consensus). For patients with synchronous or me-tachronous OMD with a disease-free interval <2 years, systemic therapy followed by restaging to consider local treatment was considered as treatment (consensus). For metachronous OMD with a disease-free interval >2 years, either upfront local treatment or systemic treatment fol-lowed by restaging was considered as treatment (fair agreement). Conclusion: The OMEC project has resulted in a multidisciplinary European consensus state -ment for the definition, diagnosis and treatment of oligometastatic oesophagogastric adeno-carcinoma and squamous cell cancer. This can be used to standardise inclusion criteria for future clinical trials. 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
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
Veen, A. van der; Seesing, M.F.J.; Wijnhoven, B.P.L.; Steur, W.O. de; Henegouwen, M.I.V.B.; Rosman, C.; ... ; MA NEC Grp 2018
Introduction: The aim of this study is to provide insight in accuracy of diagnosing, current treatment and survival in patients with resectable esophageal and gastric neuroendocrine- and mixed... Show moreIntroduction: The aim of this study is to provide insight in accuracy of diagnosing, current treatment and survival in patients with resectable esophageal and gastric neuroendocrine- and mixed adenoneuroendocrine carcinomas (NEC, MANEC).Methods: All patients with esophageal or gastric (MA)NEC, who underwent surgical resection between 2006 and 2016, were identified from the Dutch national registry for histo-and cytopathology (PALGA). Patients with a neuroendocrine tumor lower than grade 3 were excluded. Data on patients, treatment and outcomes were retrieved from the patient records. Diagnosis by endoscopic biopsy was compared with diagnosis by resection specimen. Kaplan Meier survival analysis was performed.Results: A total of 49 patients were identified in 25 hospitals, including 21 patients with esophageal (MA)NEC and 26 patients with gastric (MA)NEC on resection specimen. Biopsy diagnosis of (MA)NEC was correct in 23/27 patients. However, 20/47 patients with definitive diagnosis of (MA)NEC, were misdiagnosed on biopsy. Neoadjuvant therapy was administered in 13 (62%) esophageal (MA)NEC5 and 12 (46%) gastric (MA)NECs. Survival curves were similar with and without neoadjuvant therapy. One (4.8%) esophageal (MA)NEC and 4 (15%) gastric (MA)NEC5 died within 90 days postoperatively. For esophageal (MA)NEC the median overall survival (OS) after surgery was 37 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 71%, 50% and 35%, respectively. For gastric (MA)NEC, the median OS was 23 months and 1-, 3- and 5-year OS were 62%, 50% and 39%, respectively.Conclusion: Localized esophageal and gastric (MA)NEC are often misdiagnosed on endoscopic biopsies. After resection, long-term survival was achieved in respectively 35% and 39% of patients. (C) 2018 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Show less
