Objective: To compare radiation-induced toxicity and dosimetry parameters in patients with locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LANPC) treated with a mixed-beam (MB) approach (IMRT followed by proton therapy boost) with an historic cohort of patients treated with a full course of IMRT-only. Material and methods: Twenty-seven patients with LANPC treated with the MB approach were compared to a similar cohort of 17 patients treated with IMRT-only. The MB approach consisted in a first phase of IMRT up to 54–60 Gy followed by a second phase delivered with a proton therapy boost up to 70–74 Gy (RBE). The total dose for patients treated with IMRT-only was 69.96 Gy. Induction chemotherapy was administrated to 59 and 88% and concurrent chemoradiotherapy to 88 and 100% of the MB and IMRT-only patients, respectively. The worst toxicity occurring during the entire course of treatment (acute toxicity) and early-late toxicity were registered according to the Common Terminology Criteria Adverse Events V4.03. Results: The two cohorts were comparable. Patients treated with MB received a significantly higher median total dose to target volumes (p = .02). Acute grade 3 mucositis was found in 11 and 76% (p = .0002) of patients treated with MB and IMRT-only approach, respectively, while grade 2 xerostomia was found in 7 and 35% (p = .02) of patients treated with MB and IMRT-only, respectively. There was no statistical difference in late toxicity. Local progression-free survival (PFS) and progression-free survival curves were similar between the two cohorts of patients (p = .17 and p = .40, respectively). Local control rate was 96% and 81% for patients treated with MB approach and IMRT-only, respectively. Conclusions: Sequential MB approach for LANPC patients provides a significantly lower acute toxicity profile compared to full course of IMRT. There were no differences in early-late morbidities and disease-related outcomes (censored at two-years) but a longer follow-up is required to achieve conclusive results.

Aim: To quantify the variability between radiation oncologists (ROs) when outlining axillary nodes in breast cancer. Material and methods: For each participating center, three ROs with different levels of expertise, i.e., junior (J), senior (S) and expert (E), contoured axillary nodal levels (L1, L2, L3 and L4) on the CT images of three different patients (P) of an increasing degree of anatomical complexity (from P1 to P2 to P3), according to contouring guidelines. Consensus contours were generated using the simultaneous truth and performance level estimation (STAPLE) method. Results: Fifteen centers and 42 ROs participated. Overall, the median Dice similarity coefficient was 0.66. Statistically significant differences were observed according to the level of expertise (better agreement for J and E, worse for S); the axillary level (better agreement for L1 and L4, worse for L3); the patient (better agreement for P1, worse for P3). Statistically significant differences in contouring were found in 18% of the inter-center comparison. Less than a half of the centers could claim to have a good agreement between the internal ROs. Conclusions: The overall intra-institute and inter-institute agreement was moderate. Central lymph-node levels were the most critical and variability increased as the complexity of the patient’s anatomy increased. These findings might have an effect on the interpretation of results from multicenter and even mono-institute studies.