For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
4,241
views
82
references
 Top references
cited by
22
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      215
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      COVID-19: Global Radiation Oncology’s Targeted Response for Pandemic Preparedness

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Highlights

          • •

            As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible. Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce.

          • •

            The #radonc community held an urgent online journal club in March 2020 to discuss these issues and create some consensus on urgent next steps. There were 121 global contributors. This document summarises these discussions around themes of infection prevention, rationalisation of workload and working practice in the presence of infection.

          Abstract

          As the global COVID-19 pandemic escalates there is a need within radiation oncology to work to support our patients in the best way possible. Measures are required to reduce infection spread between patients and within the workforce. Departments need contingency planning to create capacity and continue essential treatments despite a reduced workforce.

          The #radonc community held an urgent online journal club in March 2020 to discuss these issues and create some consensus on urgent next steps. There were 121 global contributors. This document summarises these discussions around themes of infection prevention, rationalisation of workload and working practice in the presence of infection

          Related collections

          Most cited references82

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Conventional versus hypofractionated high-dose intensity-modulated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

          David Dearnaley, Isabel Syndikus, Helen Mossop … (2016)
          Summary Background Prostate cancer might have high radiation-fraction sensitivity that would give a therapeutic advantage to hypofractionated treatment. We present a pre-planned analysis of the efficacy and side-effects of a randomised trial comparing conventional and hypofractionated radiotherapy after 5 years follow-up. Methods CHHiP is a randomised, phase 3, non-inferiority trial that recruited men with localised prostate cancer (pT1b–T3aN0M0). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to conventional (74 Gy delivered in 37 fractions over 7·4 weeks) or one of two hypofractionated schedules (60 Gy in 20 fractions over 4 weeks or 57 Gy in 19 fractions over 3·8 weeks) all delivered with intensity-modulated techniques. Most patients were given radiotherapy with 3–6 months of neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen suppression. Randomisation was by computer-generated random permuted blocks, stratified by National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group and radiotherapy treatment centre, and treatment allocation was not masked. The primary endpoint was time to biochemical or clinical failure; the critical hazard ratio (HR) for non-inferiority was 1·208. Analysis was by intention to treat. Long-term follow-up continues. The CHHiP trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN97182923. Findings Between Oct 18, 2002, and June 17, 2011, 3216 men were enrolled from 71 centres and randomly assigned (74 Gy group, 1065 patients; 60 Gy group, 1074 patients; 57 Gy group, 1077 patients). Median follow-up was 62·4 months (IQR 53·9–77·0). The proportion of patients who were biochemical or clinical failure free at 5 years was 88·3% (95% CI 86·0–90·2) in the 74 Gy group, 90·6% (88·5–92·3) in the 60 Gy group, and 85·9% (83·4–88·0) in the 57 Gy group. 60 Gy was non-inferior to 74 Gy (HR 0·84 [90% CI 0·68–1·03], pNI=0·0018) but non-inferiority could not be claimed for 57 Gy compared with 74 Gy (HR 1·20 [0·99–1·46], pNI=0·48). Long-term side-effects were similar in the hypofractionated groups compared with the conventional group. There were no significant differences in either the proportion or cumulative incidence of side-effects 5 years after treatment using three clinician-reported as well as patient-reported outcome measures. The estimated cumulative 5 year incidence of Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG) grade 2 or worse bowel and bladder adverse events was 13·7% (111 events) and 9·1% (66 events) in the 74 Gy group, 11·9% (105 events) and 11·7% (88 events) in the 60 Gy group, 11·3% (95 events) and 6·6% (57 events) in the 57 Gy group, respectively. No treatment-related deaths were reported. Interpretation Hypofractionated radiotherapy using 60 Gy in 20 fractions is non-inferior to conventional fractionation using 74 Gy in 37 fractions and is recommended as a new standard of care for external-beam radiotherapy of localised prostate cancer. Funding Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.
          Article 0 comments Cited 424 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Video consultations for covid-19

            Trisha Greenhalgh, Joe Wherton, Sara Shaw … (2020)
            Article 0 comments Cited 360 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Ultra-hypofractionated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer: 5-year outcomes of the HYPO-RT-PC randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

              Anders Widmark, Adalsteinn Gunnlaugsson, Lars Beckman … (2019)
              Hypofractionated radiotherapy for prostate cancer has gained increased attention due to its proposed high radiation-fraction sensitivity. Recent reports from studies comparing moderately hypofractionated and conventionally fractionated radiotherapy support the clinical use of moderate hypofractionation. To date, there are no published randomised studies on ultra-hypofractionated radiotherapy. Here, we report the outcomes of the Scandinavian HYPO-RT-PC phase 3 trial with the aim to show non-inferiority of ultra-hypofractionation compared with conventional fractionation.
              Article 0 comments Cited 282 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Clin Transl Radiat Oncol
                Title: Clinical and Translational Radiation Oncology
                Publisher: Elsevier
                ISSN (Electronic): 2405-6308
                Publication date PMC-release: 24 March 2020
                Publication date (Electronic): 24 March 2020
                Electronic Location Identifier:
                Affiliations
                [a ]Sussex Cancer Centre, UK
                [b ]University of Mississippi Medical Center, USA
                [c ]Hospital, Springfield, MO, USA
                [d ]Radiation Oncology, Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo and University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
                [e ]Lowell, MA, USA
                [f ]Ontario, Canada
                [g ]Medical College of Wisconsin, USA
                Article
                Publisher ID: S2405-6308(20)30022-7
                DOI: 10.1016/j.ctro.2020.03.009
                PMC ID: 7102593
                SO-VID: ba17d8a6-34e1-4146-b7fe-a3e34cf44499
                Copyright © © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Date received : 20 March 2020
                Date revision received : 22 March 2020
                Date accepted : 22 March 2020
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content215

                See all similar

                Cited by100

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors1,586

                See all reference authors