With the increasing number of proton therapy centers worldwide, particularly in Europe, proton therapy is becoming a more established treatment option. However, education and guidelines, specifically tailored to radiation therapists (RTTs) and dosimetrists, are lacking. Through the “Towards a Sustainable RTT Network” (TaSeRnet) project, efforts are underway to harmonize proton therapy practices among RTTs and dosimetrists across Europe. This scoping review aims to identify and summarize existing guidelines relevant to RTTs and dosimetrists working in proton therapy, providing a necessary first step toward the future development of specific guidelines and education for these professions. Ten articles were identified that include guidelines covering certain aspects of proton therapy workflows in several clinical indications. However, significant gaps remain regarding the specific tasks performed by RTTs and dosimetrists. In particular, no guidelines were found addressing treatment execution, a workflow typically performed by RTTs. Moreover, the limited involvement of RTTs and dosimetrists in the development of existing guidelines may result in the exclusion of essential practical knowledge and expertise. As they play a critical role in the daily delivery of proton therapy, their input is vital to ensure comprehensive and applicable guidelines. In conclusion, this review underscores the need for developing guidelines specifically for RTTs and dosimetrists in collaboration with the broader multidisciplinary team. Developing such guidelines will support the standardization of clinical practice and contribute to improved quality of care.
DOCUMENT
Purpose/Objective: Most dose-escalation trials in glioblastoma patients integrate the escalated dose throughout the standard course by targeting a specific subvolume. We hypothesize that anatomical changes during irradiation may affect the dose coverage of this subvolume for both proton- and photon-based radiotherapy. Material and Methods: For 24 glioblastoma patients a photon- and proton-based dose escalation treatment plan (of 75 Gy/30 fr) was simulated on the dedicated radiotherapy planning MRI obtained before treatment. The escalated dose was planned to cover the resection cavity and/or contrast enhancing lesion on the T1w post-gadolinium MRI sequence. To analyze the effect of anatomical changes during treatment, we evaluated on an additional MRI that was obtained during treatment the changes of the dose distribution on this specific high dose region. Results: The median time between the planning MRI and additional MRI was 26 days (range 16–37 days). The median time between the planning MRI and start of radiotherapy was relatively short (7 days, range 3–11 days). In 3 patients (12.5%) changes were observed which resulted in a substantial deterioration of both the photon and proton treatment plans. All these patients underwent a subtotal resection, and a decrease in dose coverage of more than 5% and 10% was observed for the photon- and proton-based treatment plans, respectively. Conclusion: Our study showed that only for a limited number of patients anatomical changes during photon or proton based radiotherapy resulted in a potentially clinically relevant underdosage in the subvolume. Therefore, volume changes during treatment are unlikely to be responsible for the negative outcome of dose-escalation studies.
DOCUMENT
Background: Patient decision aids (PDAs) can support the treatment decision making process and empower patients to take a proactive role in their treatment pathway while using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach making participatory medicine possible. The aim of this study was to develop a PDA for prostate cancer that is accurate and user-friendly. Methods: We followed a user-centered design process consisting of five rounds of semi-structured interviews and usability surveys with topics such as informational/decisional needs of users and requirements for PDAs. Our userbase consisted of 8 urologists, 4 radiation oncologists, 2 oncology nurses, 8 general practitioners, 19 former prostate cancer patients, 4 usability experts and 11 healthy volunteers. Results: Informational needs for patients centered on three key factors: treatment experience, post-treatment quality of life, and the impact of side effects. Patients and clinicians valued a PDA that presents balanced information on these factors through simple understandable language and visual aids. Usability questionnaires revealed that patients were more satisfied overall with the PDA than clinicians; however, both groups had concerns that the PDA might lengthen consultation times (42 and 41%, respectively). The PDA is accessible on http://beslissamen.nl/. Conclusions: User-centered design provided valuable insights into PDA requirements but challenges in integrating diverse perspectives as clinicians focus on clinical outcomes while patients also consider quality of life. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve a broad base of clinical users in order to better understand the decision-making process and to develop a PDA that is accurate, usable, and acceptable.
DOCUMENT
