Purpose: To report on rectal dosimetric and toxicity outcomes of intermediate and high-risk prostate cancer patients undergoing combined high-dose-rate (HDR) brachytherapy and external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) with or without hydrogel spacer (HS) insertion. Material and methods: A total of 97 patients were analyzed in this study, with 32 patients (33%) who had HS insertion compared with a preceding group of 65 patients (67%) without HS. HS safety, the dosimetric effects on organs at risk (rectal, urethral, penile bulb, and bladder) as well as gastrointestinal (GI) and genitourinary toxicity were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results: The median prostate-rectal separation achieved with HS was 10 mm (range, 5-14 mm). There were no post-operative complications following HS insertion. Patients with HS had significantly lower radiation dose to the rectum across all rectal dose volumes from rV 30 to rV 80 , whether in absolute volume (cc) or as percentage of contoured OAR (p < 0.001). There was also significantly less acute > grade 1 GI toxicity (12.5% vs. 30.8%, p = 0.05) and a trend towards less late grade 1 GI toxicity (0% vs. 7.7%; p = 0.11) in the HS group compared to the non-HS group. Conclusions: Insertion of HS in prostate cancer patients receiving combined HDR and EBRT is safe and has resulted in a significant radiation dose reduction to the rectum, resulting in significantly less acute GI toxicity and a trend towards less late GI toxicity.

No abstract

The palliative radiotherapeutic management of unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer is controversial, with various fractionation (Fx) schedules available. We aimed to determine patient's choice of Fx schedule after involvement in a decision-making process using a decision board. A decision board outlining the various advantages and disadvantages apparent in the Medical Research Council study of Fx schedules (17 Gy in two fractions vs 39 Gy in 13 fractions) was discussed with patients who met Medical Research Council eligibility criteria. Patients were then asked to indicate their preferred Fx schedules, reasons and their level of satisfaction with being involved in the decision-making process. Radiation oncologists (RO) could prescribe radiotherapy schedules irrespective of patients' preferences. Of 92 patients enrolled, 55% chose the longer schedule. English-speaking patients were significantly more likely to choose the longer schedule (P = 0.02, 95% confidence interval: 1.2-7.6). Longer Fx was chosen because of longer survival (90%) and better local control (12%). Shorter Fx was chosen for shorter overall treatment duration (80%), cost (61%) and better symptom control (20%). In all, 56% of patients choosing the shorter schedule had their treatment altered by the treating RO, whereas only 4% of patients choosing longer Fx had their treatment altered (P < 0.001). Despite this, all (100%) patients were satisfied with being involved in the decision-making process. The decision board was useful in aiding decision-making, with both Fx schedules being acceptable to patients. Interestingly, despite the longer average survival associated with longer Fx, nearly half of the patients believed that this was not as important as a shorter duration of treatment and lower cost. Despite patients' preferences, there were significant alterations of preferred schedules because of RO's own biases.