No abstract

We found that using altered fraction size regimens (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) does not have a clinically meaningful effect on local recurrence, is associated with decreased acute toxicity and does not seem to affect breast appearance, late toxicity or patient-reported quality-of-life measures for selected women treated with breast conserving therapy. These are mostly women with node negative tumours smaller than 3 cm and negative pathological margins.

Background Using hypofractionation (fewer, larger doses of daily radiation) to treat localized prostate cancer may improve convenience and resource use. For hypofractionation to be feasible, it must be at least as effective for cancer-related outcomes and have comparable toxicity and quality of life outcomes as conventionally fractionated radiation therapy. Objectives To assess the effects of hypofractionated external beam radiation therapy compared to conventionally fractionated external beam radiation therapy for men with clinically localized prostate cancer. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid) and trials registries from 1946 to 15 March 2019 with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors. Searches were not limited by language or publication status. We reran all searches within three months (15th March 2019) prior to publication. Selection criteria Randomized controlled comparisons which included men with clinically localized prostate adenocarcinoma where hypofractionated radiation therapy (external beam radiation therapy) to the prostate using hypofractionation (greater than 2 Gy per fraction) compared with conventionally fractionated radiation therapy to the prostate delivered using standard fractionation (1.8 Gy to 2 Gy per fraction). Data collection and analysis We used standard Cochrane methodology. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We used Review Manager 5 for data analysis and meta-analysis. We used the inverse variance method and random-effects model for data synthesis of time-to-event data with hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) reported. For dichotomous data, we used the Mantel-Haenzel method and random-effects model to present risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. We used GRADE to assess evidence quality for each outcome. Main results We included 10 studies with 8278 men in our analysis comparing hypofractionation with conventional fractionation to treat prostate cancer. Primary outcomes Hypofractionation for clinically localized prostate cancer (Review)

Anon 1981 {unpublished data only} * Anonymous. Randomised trial of the use of local excision, axillary node dissection and radiotherapy in the treatment of early breast cancer. UKCCR trials site (no longer funded). Anon 1982 {unpublished data only} Anonymous. Breast conservation for patients with early carcinoma of the breast. UKCCCCR trials register Ref 6166.

IntroductionThis paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2014 workforce census and compares the results with earlier surveys.MethodsThe census was conducted in mid‐2014 with distribution to all radiation oncologists, educational affiliates and trainees listed on the college database. There were six email reminders and responses were anonymous. The overall response rate was 76.1%.ResultsThe age range of fellows was 32–96 (mean = 49 years, median = 47 years). The majority of the radiation oncologists were male (n = 263, 63%). The minority of radiation oncologists were of Asian descent (n = 43, 13.4%). Radiation oncologists graduated from medical school on average 23 years ago (median = 22 years). A minority of fellows (n = 66, 20%) held another postgraduate qualification. Most radiation oncologists worked, on average, at two practices (median = 2, range 1–7). Practising radiation oncologists worked predominantly in the public sector (n = 131, 49%), but many worked in both the public and private sectors (n = 94, 37%), and a minority worked in the private sector only (n = 38, 14%). The largest proportion of the workforce was from New South Wales accounting for 29% of radiation oncologists. Radiation oncologists worked an average of 43 h/week (median = 43 h, range 6–80). Radiation oncologists who worked in the private sector worked less hours than their public sector or public/private sector colleagues. (38.3 vs. 42.9 vs. 44.3 h, P = 0.042). Victorians worked the fewest average hours per week at 38 h and West Australians the most at 46 h/week. Radiation oncologists averaged 48 min for each new case, 17 min per follow up and 11 min for a treatment review. Radiation oncologists averaged 246 new patients per year (median = 250, range = 20–600) with men (average = 268), Western Australians (average = 354) and those in private practice seeing more (average = 275). Most radiation oncologists considered themselves as specialists (n = 151, 60%), but nearly all those from South Australia were generalists (n = 15, 94%) as were three‐quarters of those from private practice. A minority of radiation oncologist respondents (10%) intended to retire within 5 years with a further 16% within 10 years.There was a stabilisation of trainee numbers in Australia and New Zealand with no increase compared with 2010 (142 in 2014 vs. 143 in 2010). The most common age bracket for trainees remained 31–35 years. One‐third of trainees were of Asian descent and nearly half held other degrees. The majority of trainees were satisfied with their career, but 30% were not entirely satisfied. Nearly half of trainee respondents would have reconsidered their choice of specialty had they known about the possible oversupply in the workforce with 12.4% undecided about continuing their career in radiation oncology. There were still 16% of trainees with no protected time during the working week, and a further 21% with only 1 h. Only one trainee respondent preferred to work in private practice, and job availability remained a c...

No abstract

Introduction This paper reports the key findings of the Faculty of Radiation Oncology 2018 workforce census and compares results with previous studies. Methods The census was conducted in mid‐2018 with distribution to all radiation oncologists and trainees listed on the college database in Australia, New Zealand, Singapore and overseas. There were new questions about hours spent on multidisciplinary meetings (MDTS), leadership positions held, management of inpatients, hypofractionation, stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT), income type and gynae‐oncology work for radiation oncologists. Trainees were asked about time spent on planning and contouring. Results The overall response rate was 69.9% with 67.7% of radiation oncologists and 77.9% of trainees responding. There were 514 radiation oncologists with 60% male and a mean age of 49 years (median = 46 years, range 31–91). The majority of respondents were Caucasian (57.7%) and from New South Wales (29.4%). Sixty‐one per cent were subspecialists with breast, SBRT and urological cancers, the most popular areas of interest, and 56% held leadership positions. The majority worked in the public sector (55.7%), but 31.7% worked solely in the private sector with an average working week of 43.4 hours (h) (median = 44, range 2–110). Radiation oncologists spent an average of 3.6 h on MDTS (median = 4 h), 2.2h (median = 2 h) on simulation and 8 h (median = 5 h) on contouring per week. They averaged 245 new patients (median = 250, range 30–695) and 25 inpatients (median = 20) per year. Hypofractionation was used for radical treatment of breast (75%) and prostate cancer (49%). Radiation oncologists were mainly remunerated with a fixed income (53%) with 40% having some incentive‐based income. There were 140 trainees with an equal male and female distribution. The large majority (88%) were satisfied with their career and network (83%). Most trainees worked between 36 and 55h per week with 15% having no protected time. Most trainees spent less than 5 hours on planning each week and job availability remained a major concern (90%). Conclusions The radiation oncologist numbers have increased significantly, but unemployment remains low. Many parameters remain similar to the 2014 census, but new information has been obtained on special interest areas, leadership positions, gynae‐oncology, inpatients, hypofractionation use, remuneration and contouring. Trainee numbers remain stable with an increased percentage satisfied with their career with much less concern about oversupply. Protected time remains an issue with contouring time and teaching emerging as a potential issue.

The high local control rate with HFRT, combined with acceptable toxicity and the practical benefits of a shorter treatment time, supports its ongoing use in the eligible patient group. A randomised controlled trial would be necessary to more completely assess the acute and long-term toxicity of HFRT compared with standard fractionation.