Thomas P Shakespeare1, Justin Westhuyzen1, Tracy Lim Yew Fai2, Noel J Aherne1,3. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Mid-North Coast Cancer Institute, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia. 2. Department of Radiation Oncology, North Coast Cancer Institute, Lismore, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate patient choice of prostate cancer radiotherapy fractionation, using a decision aid. BACKGROUND: Recent ASTRO guidelines recommend patients with localised prostate cancer be offered moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy after discussing increased acute toxicity and uncertainty of long-term results compared to conventional fractionation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision aid was designed to outline the benefits and potential downsides of conventionally and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The aid incorporated the ASTRO guideline to outline risks and benefits. RESULTS: In all, 124 patients with localised prostate cancer were seen from June-December 2018. Median age was 72 (range 50-90), 49.6 % were intermediate risk (50.4 % high risk). All except three patients made a choice using the aid; the three undecided patients were hypofractionated. In all, 33.9 % of patients chose hypofractionation: falling to 25.3 % for patients under 75 years, 24.3 % for patients living within 30 miles of the cancer centre, and 14.3 % for patients with baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. On multivariate analysis, younger age, proximity to the centre, and having baseline gastrointestinal symptoms significantly predicted for choosing conventional fractionation. Insurance status, attending clinician, baseline genitourinary symptoms, work/carer status, ECOG, cancer risk group and driving status did not impact choice. Reasons for choosing conventional fractionation were certainty of long-term results (84 %) and lower acute bowel toxicity (51 %). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients declined the convenience of moderate hypofractionation due to potentially increased acute toxicity, and the uncertainty of long-term outcomes. We advocate that no patient should be offered hypofractionation without a thorough discussion of uncertainty and acute toxicity.
AIM: To evaluate patient choice of prostate cancer radiotherapy fractionation, using a decision aid. BACKGROUND: Recent ASTRO guidelines recommend patients with localised prostate cancer be offered moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy after discussing increased acute toxicity and uncertainty of long-term results compared to conventional fractionation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A decision aid was designed to outline the benefits and potential downsides of conventionally and moderately hypofractionated radiation therapy. The aid incorporated the ASTRO guideline to outline risks and benefits. RESULTS: In all, 124 patients with localised prostate cancer were seen from June-December 2018. Median age was 72 (range 50-90), 49.6 % were intermediate risk (50.4 % high risk). All except three patients made a choice using the aid; the three undecided patients were hypofractionated. In all, 33.9 % of patients chose hypofractionation: falling to 25.3 % for patients under 75 years, 24.3 % for patients living within 30 miles of the cancer centre, and 14.3 % for patients with baseline gastrointestinal symptoms. On multivariate analysis, younger age, proximity to the centre, and having baseline gastrointestinal symptoms significantly predicted for choosing conventional fractionation. Insurance status, attending clinician, baseline genitourinary symptoms, work/carer status, ECOG, cancer risk group and driving status did not impact choice. Reasons for choosing conventional fractionation were certainty of long-term results (84 %) and lower acute bowel toxicity (51 %). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients declined the convenience of moderate hypofractionation due to potentially increased acute toxicity, and the uncertainty of long-term outcomes. We advocate that no patient should be offered hypofractionation without a thorough discussion of uncertainty and acute toxicity.
Authors: Bridget L Te Velde; Justin Westhuyzen; Nader Awad; Maree Wood; Thomas P Shakespeare Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2017-02-02 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Scott C Morgan; Karen Hoffman; D Andrew Loblaw; Mark K Buyyounouski; Caroline Patton; Daniel Barocas; Soren Bentzen; Michael Chang; Jason Efstathiou; Patrick Greany; Per Halvorsen; Bridget F Koontz; Colleen Lawton; C Marc Leyrer; Daniel Lin; Michael Ray; Howard Sandler Journal: Pract Radiat Oncol Date: 2018-10-11
Authors: Shafak Aluwini; Floris Pos; Erik Schimmel; Emile van Lin; Stijn Krol; Peter Paul van der Toorn; Hanja de Jager; Maarten Dirkx; Wendimagegn Ghidey Alemayehu; Ben Heijmen; Luca Incrocci Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2015-02-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: J I Tang; T P Shakespeare; J J Lu; Y H Chan; K M Lee; L C Wong; R K Mukherjee; M F Back Journal: J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 1.735
Authors: Patrick J Horsley; Noel J Aherne; Grace V Edwards; Linus C Benjamin; Shea W Wilcox; Craig S McLachlan; Hassan Assareh; Richard Welshman; Michael J McKay; Thomas P Shakespeare Journal: Asia Pac J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-16 Impact factor: 2.601
Authors: Shea W Wilcox; Noel J Aherne; Linus C Benjamin; Bosco Wu; Thomaz de Campos Silva; Craig S McLachlan; Michael J McKay; Andrew J Last; Thomas P Shakespeare Journal: Onco Targets Ther Date: 2014-08-30 Impact factor: 4.147