Aims: This study describes nationwide primary radiotherapy utilisation trends for non-metastasised rectal cancer in the Netherlands between 2008 and 2021. In 2014, both colorectal cancer screening and a new guideline specifying prognostic risk groups for neoadjuvant treatment were implemented. Materials and methods: Patients with non-metastasised rectal cancer in 2008-2021 (n 1/4 37 510) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and classified into prognostic risk groups. Treatment was studied over time and age. Multilevel logistic regression analyses were carried out to identify factors associated with (i) radiotherapy versus chemoradiotherapy use for intermediate rectal cancer and (ii) chemoradiotherapy without versus with surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer. Results: For early rectal cancer, the use of neoadjuvant radiotherapy decreased (15% to 5% between 2008 and 2021), whereas the use of endoscopic resections increased (8% in 2015, 17% in 2021). In intermediate-risk rectal cancer, neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (43% until 2011, 25% in 2015) shifted to radiotherapy (42% in 2008, 50% in 2015), the latter being most often applied in older patients. In locally advanced rectal cancer, the use of chemoradiotherapy without surgery increased (2-4% in 2008-2013,17% in 2019-2021). Both neoadjuvant treatment in intermediate disease and omission of surgery following chemoradiotherapy in locally advanced disease varied with increasing age (odds ratio>75vs<50: 2.17, 95% confidence interval 1.54-3.06) and treatment region (Southwest and Northwest odds ratio 0.63, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.93 and odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.95, respectively, compared with the North). Conclusion: Treatment patterns in non-metastasised rectal cancer significantly changed over time. Effects of both the national screening programme and the new treatment guideline were apparent, as well as a paradigm shift towards organ preservation (watch -and -wait). Observed regional variations may indicate adoption differences regarding new treatment strategies. (c) 2024 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

AIMS:Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS) treated by breast-conserving surgery followed by radiotherapy aims to decrease the probability of locally recurrent disease. The role of whole breast irradiation, specifically in DCIS having low recurrence risk and low risk of becoming invasive, is increasingly debated. Also, the added value of applying boost irradiation in DCIS has been questioned. Hence, we evaluated the nationwide radiotherapy use in DCIS treatment in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women diagnosed with DCIS in 2008-2022 were identified in the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Their primary treatment was presented over time and for age groups, stratified for DCIS grade I-II and III. Factors associated with radiotherapy use after breast-conserving surgery and boost irradiation use in whole breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery were identified. RESULTS:In women with DCIS grade I-II (N = 16,653), the use of breast-conserving surgery without radiotherapy increased from ∼11% in 2008-2013 to ∼26% in 2017-2022. Furthermore, post-breast-conserving surgery radiotherapy increasingly concerned whole breast irradiation without a boost or partial breast irradiation. Moreover, surgery was omitted more often in recent years (30% in 2022). In DCIS grade III (N = 13,534), the use of breast-conserving surgery without radiotherapy only slightly increased in the most recent years in older patients, while boost irradiation was increasingly omitted. Whole breast irradiation and boost irradiation following breast-conserving surgery were more often applied in case of a higher risk of recurrences: young age, larger lesions, or irradical resection. Variation was observed for hospital-characteristics but not for regions. CONCLUSION:In DCIS, the process of omitting breast irradiation after breast-conserving surgery is clearly ongoing. Boost irradiation was administered less frequently. Furthermore, the use of partial breast irradiation was introduced in recent years. These effects are more prominent in older women and those with grade I-II DCIS.

AIMS:This nationwide study provides an overview of trends and variations in radiotherapy use as part of multimodal treatment of invasive non-metastatic breast cancer in the Netherlands in 2008-2019. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Women with invasive non-metastatic breast cancer were selected from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatments trends were presented over time. Factors associated with (1) boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy and (2) regional radiotherapy instead of axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) in N+ disease were identified using multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS:Radiotherapy use increased from 61% (2008) to 70% (2016), caused by breast-conserving therapy instead of mastectomy, increased post-mastectomy radiotherapy, and increased regional radiotherapy (32% in 2011 to 61% in 2019) instead of ALND in N+ disease. Omission of radiotherapy after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) in 2016-2019 (4-9%, respectively), mainly in elderly, decreased overall radiotherapy use to 67%. Radiotherapy treatment was further de-escalated by decreased boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy (66% in 2011 to 37% in 2019) and partial (1% in 2011 to 6% in 2019) instead of whole breast irradiation following BCS. Boost irradiation was associated with high-risk features: younger age (OR>75 vs <50:0.04, 95%CI:0.03-0.05), higher grade (OR grade III vs I:11.46, 95%CI:9.90-13.26) and residual disease (OR focal residual vs R0-resection:28.08, 95%CI:23.07-34.17). Variation across the country was found for both boost irradiation use (OR South vs North:0.58, 95%CI:0.49-0.68), and regional radiotherapy instead of ALND (OR Southwest vs North:0.55, 95%CI:0.37-0.80). CONCLUSION:Overall radiotherapy use increased in 2008-2016, while a decreasing trend was observed after 2016, caused by post-BCS radiotherapy omission. Boost irradiation in breast-conserving therapy became omitted in low-risk patients, and regional radiotherapy use increased as an alternative for ALND in N+ disease.

The authors would like to inform that in the original publication two rows stating 'RT alone' in Table 1 were included, whereas only the upper row regards 'RT alone' and the lower row regards 'Chemotherapy alone'. Also, the percentages of patients receiving stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) were calculated with the number of patients receiving any radiotherapy (excl. prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI)) as denominator, which may be unclear in the original publication. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused. Trends and variations in the treatment of stage I-III small cell lung cancer from 2008 to 2019: A nationwide population-based study from the NetherlandsLung CancerVol. 162PreviewSmall cell lung cancer (SCLC) accounts for approximately 12% of all lung cancer diagnoses worldwide and is often (∼70%) metastasized at first presentation [1]. Almost all patients without distant metastases are diagnosed with locoregionally advanced disease [2]. Historically, SCLC was classified either as limited (disease confined to one hemithorax and regional lymph nodes that can be encompassed in the same radiation portal as the primary tumor) or extensive disease (the remainder). Limited disease roughly translates into the potentially curable TNM stages I-III, whereas extensive disease translates into stage IV [3]. Full-Text PDF Open Access

Purpose: This population-based study describes nationwide trends and variation in the use of primary radiotherapy for non-metastatic prostate cancer in The Netherlands in 2008-2019.Methods: Prostate cancer patients were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (N = 103,059). Treatment trends were studied over time by prognostic risk groups. Multilevel analyses were applied to identify variables associated with external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) and brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease, and EBRT versus radical prostatectomy in intermediate and highrisk disease.Results: EBRT use remained stable (5-6%) in low-risk prostate cancer and increased from 21% to 32% in intermediate-risk, 37% to 45% in high-risk localized and 50% to 57% in high-risk locally advanced disease. Brachy-monotherapy decreased from 19% to 6% and from 15% to 10% in low and intermediate-risk disease, respectively, coinciding an increase of no active treatment from 55% to 73% in low-risk disease. Use of EBRT or brachy-monotherapy versus no active treatment in low-risk disease differed by region, T-stage and patient characteristics. Hospital characteristics were not associated with treatment in lowrisk disease, except for availability of brachy-monotherapy in 2008-2013. Age, number of comorbidities, travel time for EBRT, prognostic risk group, and hospital characteristics were associated with EBRT versus prostatectomy in intermediate and high-risk disease.Conclusion: Intermediate/high-risk PCa was increasingly managed with EBRT, while brachymonotherapy in low/intermediate-risk PCa decreased. In low-risk PCa, the no active treatmentapproach increased. Variation in treatment suggests treatment decision related to patient/disease characteristics. In intermediate/high-risk disease, variation seems furthermore related to the treatment modalities available in the diagnosing hospitals.(c) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V. Radiotherapy and Oncology 177 (2022) 134-142 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction: This Dutch population-based study describes nationwide treatment patterns and its variations for stage I-III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Materials and methods: Patients diagnosed with clinical stage I-III NSCLC in the period 2008-2018 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatment trends were studied over time and age groups. Use of radiotherapy versus surgery (stage I-II), and concurrent versus sequential chemoradiotherapy (stage III) were analyzed by logistic regression. Results: In stage I, the rate of surgery decreased from 58 % (2008) to 40 % (2018) while radiotherapy use increased over time (from 31 % to 52 %), which mostly concerned stereotactic body radiotherapy (74 %). In stage II, 54 % of patients received surgery, and use of radiotherapy alone increased from 18 % to 25 %. The strongest factors favoring radiotherapy over surgery were WHO performance status (OR > 2 vs 0: 23.39 (95% CI: 18.93-28.90)), increasing age (OR > 80 vs <60 years: 14.52 (95% CI: 13.02-16.18)) and stage (OR stage II vs I: 0.61 (95% CI: 0.57-0.65)). In stage III, the combined use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased from 35 % (2008) to 39 % (2018). In all years, 23 % received concurrent chemoradiotherapy, 9 % sequential chemoradiotherapy, 23 % radiotherapy or chemotherapy alone, and 25 % best supportive care. The strongest factors favoring concurrent over sequential chemoradiotherapy were age (OR > 80 vs <60 years: 0.14 (95% CI: 0.10-0.19)), WHO Performance status (OR > 2 vs 0: 0.33 (95% CI: 0.24-0.47)) and region (OR east vs north: 0.39 (95% CI: 0.30-0.50)). Conclusions: The use of radiotherapy became more prominent over time in stage I NSCLC. Combined use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy marginally increased in stage III: only one third of patients received chemoradiotherapy, mainly concurrently. Treatment variation seen between patient groups suggests tailored treatment decision, while variation between hospitals and regions indicate differences in clinical practice.

Objectives: Recent treatment patterns for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) in the Netherlands were unknown. This nationwide population-based study describes trends and variations in the treatment of stage I-III SCLC in the Netherlands over the period 2008-2019. Materials and methods: Patients were selected from the population-based Netherlands Cancer Registry. Treatments were studied stratified for clinical stage. In stage II-III, factors associated with the use of concurrent (cCRT) versus sequential chemoradiation (sCRT) and accelerated versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy in the context of cCRT were identified. Results: In stage I (N = 535), 29% of the patients underwent surgery in 2008-2009 which increased to 44% in 2018-2019. Combined use of chemotherapy and radiotherapy decreased in stage I from 47% to 15%, remained constant (64%) in stage II (N = 472), and increased from 57% (2008) to 70% (2019) in stage III (N = 5,571). Use of cCRT versus sCRT in stage II-III increased over time (odds ratio (OR) 2008-2011 vs 2016-2019: 0.53 (95%-confidence interval (95%CI): 0.41-0.69)) and was strongly associated with lower age, WHO performance status 0, and diagnosis in a hospital with in-house radiotherapy. Forty-six percent of patients with stage III received cCRT in 2019. Until 2012, concurrent radiotherapy was mainly conventionally fractionated, thereafter a hyperfractionated accelerated scheme was administered more frequently (57%). Accelerated radiotherapy was strongly associated with geographic region (ORsouth vs north: 4.13 (95%CI: 3.00-5.70)), WHO performance (OR1 vs 0: 0.50 (95%CI: 0.35-0.71)), and radiotherapy facilities treating >= 16 vs < 16 SCLC patients annually (OR: 3.01 (95%CI: 2.38-3.79)). Conclusions: The use of surgery increased in stage I. In stages II and III, the use of cCRT versus sCRT increased over time, and since 2012 most radiotherapy in cCRT was accelerated. Treatment regimens and radiotherapy fractionation schemes varied between patient groups, regions and hospitals. Possible unwarranted treatment variation should be countered.

Background Non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients are at high risk for tumour recurrence and progression, hence an intensive follow-up procedure is recommended which is costly. Identification of factors that are associated with the risk of recurrence and progression may enable personalized follow-up schedules. Obesity and diabetes mellitus may be associated with a worse prognosis, but the evidence is limited and inconsistent. Our objective was to determine the associations of BMI and diabetes mellitus with risks of recurrence and progression among non-muscle invasive bladder cancer patients. Methods A population-based cohort of patients diagnosed with non-muscle invasive bladder cancer between 1995 and 2010 was retrospectively identified from the Netherlands Cancer Registry and invited to participate in the Nijmegen Bladder Cancer Study (n = 1,433). Average weight during adult life, height, and diabetes mellitus diagnosis were self-reported by use of a questionnaire. Clinical follow-up data were retrieved from medical files. Associations were quantified using proportional hazard analyses. For all analyses, minimal adjustment sets were selected using a Directed Acyclic Graph. Results Fourteen percent of the patients indicated to be diagnosed with diabetes mellitus, and more than half was overweight (45%) or obese (9%). Compared to healthy weight, overweight and obesity were not associated with risk of recurrence (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) = 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.86-1.22, and HR = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.76-1.38, respectively) and overall progression (HR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.74-1.44, and HR = 1.20; 95% CI: 0.69-2.09, respectively). Also, no clear associations of diabetes mellitus with risk of recurrence (HR = 1.22; 95% CI: 0.98-1.54) and overall progression (HR = 1.16; 95% CI: 0.76-1.76) were found. Conclusion Average BMI during adult life and diabetes mellitus were not clearly associated with risk of recurrence or progression in non-muscle invasive bladder cancer. Prospective cohort studies with detailed information on BMI and diabetes mellitus before and after diagnosis are needed to confirm these findings.

OBJECTIVE:This survey explores the degree of consensus amongst healthcare professionals for the support of cancer patients' lifestyle management, based on three questions posed to them: a) what do they know about the relation between lifestyle and cancer?; b) do they consider lifestyle support for cancer patients part of their professional role?; c) does their own lifestyle influence the lifestyle management consultations they may have with cancer patients? Design Survey study.METHOD:A digital questionnaire with questions concerning lifestyle and cancer was sent to 1550 healthcare professionals in and around Nijmegen. The questionnaire was filled out by 562 healthcare professionals (36% response rate), of whom 404 (72%) were involved in cancer patient care. This cohort of responders consisted of 170 medical specialists, 62 general practitioners, and 172 nurses and allied health professionals.RESULTS:Healthcare professionals acknowledge the influence of lifestyle on the development of cancer. Almost all healthcare professionals (98%) agree on the positive effects of a healthy lifestyle on the well-being of cancer patients. Approximately two-thirds of all responders believe that lifestyle support should 'usually' or 'always' form part of cancer care; about fifty percent report to implement this in clinical practice. Healthcare professionals require evidence-based knowledge concerning the relationship between lifestyle and cancer, patient information materials, and additional consultation time to support lifestyle management involving cancer patients. The healthcare professionals' own lifestyle appears to have an influence: in those responders who do not adhere to a healthy lifestyle themselves, lifestyle was also covered less in consultations.CONCLUSION:This explorative survey shows that lifestyle support of cancer patients is deemed an important topic amongst healthcare professionals.

The thesis provides an overview and tries to explain the nationwide trends and variations of primary radiotherapy use in non-metastatic stages of cancer types often seen at radiotherapeutic facilities: lung cancer – both non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC), breast cancer – both ductal carcinoma in-situ (DCIS) and invasive breast cancer, prostate cancer, and rectal cancer. The radiotherapy utilization rates were investigated in the broader context of multidisciplinary treatment of these tumor types. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to provide these insights.