Disconnected cancer research data management and lack of information exchange about planned and ongoing research are complicating the utilisation of internationally collected medical information for improving cancer patient care. Rapidly collecting/pooling data can accelerate translational research in radiation therapy and oncology. The exchange of study data is one of the fundamental principles behind data aggregation and data mining. The possibilities of reproducing the original study results, performing further analyses on existing research data to generate new hypotheses or developing computational models to support medical decisions (e.g. risk/benefit analysis of treatment options) represent just a fraction of the potential benefits of medical data-pooling. Distributed machine learning and knowledge exchange from federated databases can be considered as one beyond other attractive approaches for knowledge generation within "Big Data". Data interoperability between research institutions should be the major concern behind a wider collaboration. Information captured in electronic patient records (EPRs) and study case report forms (eCRFs), linked together with medical imaging and treatment planning data, are deemed to be fundamental elements for large multi-centre studies in the field of radiation therapy and oncology. To fully utilise the captured medical information, the study data have to be more than just an electronic version of a traditional (un-modifiable) paper CRF. Challenges that have to be addressed are data interoperability, utilisation of standards, data quality and privacy concerns, data ownership, rights to publish, data pooling architecture and storage. This paper discusses a framework for conceptual packages of ideas focused on a strategic development for international research data exchange in the field of radiation therapy and oncology.

Clinical treatment with protons uses the concept of relative biological effectiveness (RBE) to convert the absorbed dose into an RBE-weighted dose that equals the dose for radiotherapy with photons causing the same biological effect. Currently, in proton therapy a constant RBE of 1.1 is generically used. However, empirical data indicate that the RBE is not constant, but increases at the distal edge of the proton beam. This increase in RBE is of concern, as the clinical impact is still unresolved, and clinical studies demonstrating a clinical effect of an increased RBE are emerging. Within the European Particle Therapy Network (EPTN) work package 6 on radiobiology and RBE, a workshop was held in February 2020 in Manchester with one day of discussion dedicated to the impact of proton RBE in a clinical context. Current data on RBE effects, patient outcome and modelling from experimental as well as clinical studies were presented and discussed. Furthermore, representatives from European clinical proton therapy centres, who were involved in patient treatment, laid out their current clinical practice on how to consider the risk of a variable RBE in their centres. In line with the workshop, this work considers the actual impact of RBE issues on patient care in proton therapy by reviewing preclinical data on the relation between linear energy transfer (LET) and RBE, current clinical data sets on RBE effects in patients, and applied clinical strategies to manage RBE uncertainties. A better understanding of the variability in RBE would allow development of proton treatments which are safer and more effective.

To update the digital online atlas for organs at risk (OARs) delineation in neuro-oncology based on high-quality computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with new OARs. In this planned update of the neurological contouring atlas published in 2018, ten new clinically relevant OARs were included, after thorough discussion between experienced neuro-radiation oncologists (RTOs) representing 30 European radiotherapy-oncology institutes. Inclusion was based on daily practice and research requirements. Consensus was reached for the delineation after critical review. Contouring was performed on registered CT with intravenous (IV) contrast (soft tissue & bone window setting) and 3 Tesla (T) MRI (T1 with gadolinium & T2 FLAIR) images of one patient (1 mm slices). For illustration purposes, delineation on a 7T MRI without IV contrast from a healthy volunteer was added. OARs were delineated by three experienced RTOs and a neuroradiologist based on the relevant literature. The presented update of the neurological contouring atlas was reviewed and approved by 28 experts in the field. The atlas is available online and includes in total 25 OARs relevant to neuro-oncology, contoured on CT and MRI T1 and FLAIR (3T & 7T). Three-dimensional (3D) rendered films are also available online. In order to further decrease inter- and intra-observer OAR delineation variability in the field of neuro-oncology, we propose the use of this contouring atlas in photon and particle therapy, in clinical practice and in the research setting. The updated atlas is freely available on www.cancerdata.org.

Objective: A study of interobserver variation in the segmentation of the post-operative clinical target volume (CTV) and organs at risk (OARs) for parotid tumours was undertaken. The segmentation exercise was performed as a baseline, and repeated after 3 months using a segmentation protocol to assess whether CTV conformity improved. Methods: Four head and neck oncologists independently segmented CTVs and OARs (contralateral parotid, spinal cord and brain stem) on CT data sets of five patients post parotidectomy. For each CTV or OAR delineation, total volume was calculated. The conformity level (CL) between different clinicians' outlines was measured using a validated outline analysis tool. The data for CTVs were reaanalysed after using the cochlear sparing therapy and conventional radiation segmentation protocol. Results: Significant differences in CTV morphology were observed at baseline, yielding a mean CL of 30% (range 25–39%). The CL improved after using the segmentation protocol with a mean CL of 54% (range 50–65%). For OARs, the mean CL was 60% (range 53–68%) for the contralateral parotid gland, 23% (range 13–27%) for the brain stem and 25% (range 22–31%) for the spinal cord. Conclusions: There was low conformity for CTVs and OARs between different clinicians. The CL for CTVs improved with use of a segmentation protocol, but the CLs remained lower than expected. This study supports the need for clear guidelines for segmentation of target and OARs to compare and interpret the results of head and neck cancer radiation studies.