This paper aims to discuss the psychosocial concomitants with involvement in oncology clinical trials, focusing on barriers that can impact upon participation. It will conclude with some recommendations for strategies to address potential psychosocial barriers with the aim of increasing trial participation rates.

A literature search was carried out using CINAHL, PubMed and EMCare databases with the following keywords for filtering: psychological distress, clinical trials, participation and oncology. The final selection of papers that met the inclusion criteria for this review was manually subjected to Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool for relevance.

Thirteen papers were included in the review. The dominant theme within the literature is psychosocial obstacles to oncology clinical trial participation. Five key barriers were identified: anxiety and fear; ethnicity and social background; tensions between scientific objectives and personal motivations to participation; tensions between personal benefits versus altruism; carer perspectives.

The key barriers discussed led to the identification of a set of strategies to help mediate conflicting tensions and motivations of trial enrolment with a view to increasing participation rates. Further prospective research garnering primary data investigating both the psychological and psychosocial factors influencing cancer clinical trial participation for patients needs to be undertaken.

This critical review of the literature seeks to understand the psychological impact that treatment interventions may have on prostate cancer (PC) survivors.

A literature search was conducted using databases of peer-reviewed literature. The search terms used were devised using the building-blocks technique to divide the query into facets. The articles were manually assessed for relevance and appraised using the relevant Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool. Government guidelines and regulations were also used following a manual search on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) website. This process resulted in a total of 12 sources being included in the critical review.

The key themes that arose from the review were masculinity, depression, anxiety and psychological implications related to sexual functioning. Psychological impact varies on an individual basis and is influenced by the quality of a patient’s experience during and after treatment in relation to sufficient information giving and support.

Open communication should be encouraged by healthcare professionals to assess patient mental wellbeing. The extent of psychological impact varies on an individual basis; however, there are predictive factors that can make an individual more at risk of being affected psychologically post-PC treatment.

To evaluate the quality of rectal hydrogel spacer (HS) insertions from literature in patients undergoing radical radiotherapy for prostate cancer. The secondary aim is to assess the benefit of HSs in patients with risk factors more likely to have rectal complications, such as non-conventional radiotherapy dose fractionations and high-risk disease.

A literature search of peer-reviewed electronic articles was carried out using Boolean connectors and Medical Subject Headings in the databases. Databases searched included ScienceDirect, Medline and Cinahl. The articles were assessed using relevant critical appraisal skills programme tools.

From the 26 studies used, HS showed a clinically significant relative reduction in rectal planning dose volumes for both high- and low-risk prostate cancer patients in a range of radiotherapy treatment modalities including volumetric modulated arc therapy, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, intensity-modulated proton therapy, stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy and brachytherapy. Spacer placements were successfully inserted in 99% of patients. However, rectal wall infiltration occurrence was 6% and ≥2 cm unsymmetrical placements in 2%.

A spacer scoring system based on the HS symmetry has provided evidence of the quality of the position inserted, which was visually aided by T2-wieghted MRIs. Despite optimal HS placements ranging from 62 to 72%, HS had a clinically significant reduction of ≥25% in planned rectal V70 dose in 97% of patients.

This review evaluates whether brachytherapy can be considered as an alternative to whole breast irradiation (WBI) using criteria such as local recurrence rates, overall survival rates and quality of life (QoL) factors. This is an important issue because of a decline in local recurrence rates, suggesting that some women at very low risk of recurrence may be incurring the negative long-term side effects of WBI without benefitting from a reduction in local recurrence and greater overall survival. As such, the purpose of this literature review is to evaluate whether brachytherapy is a credible alternative to external beam radiation with a particular focus on the impact it has on patient QoL.

The search terms used were devised by using the Population Intervention Comparison Outcome framework, and a literature search was carried out using Boolean connectors and Medical Subject Headings in the PubMed database. The resultant articles were manually assessed for relevance and appraised using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network tool. Additional papers were sourced from the citations of articles found using the search strategy. Government guidelines and regulations were also used following a manual search on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website. This process resulted in a total of 30 sources being included as part of the review.

Three types of brachytherapy were the foundation for the majority of the papers found: interstitial multi-catheter brachytherapy, intra-cavity brachytherapy and permanent seed implantation. The key themes that arose from the literature were that brachytherapy is equivalent to WBI both in terms of 5-year local recurrence rates and overall survival rates at 10–12 years. The findings showed that brachytherapy was superior to WBI for some QoL factors such as being less time-consuming and equal in terms of others such as breast cosmesis. The results did also show that brachytherapy does come with its own local toxicities that could impact upon QoL such as the poor breast cosmesis associated with some brachytherapy techniques.

In conclusion, brachytherapy was deemed a safe or acceptable alternative to WBI, but there is a need for further research on the long-term local recurrence rates, survival rates and quality of life issues as the volume of evidence is still significantly smaller for brachytherapy than for WBI. Specifically, there needs to be further investigation as to which patients will benefit from being offered brachytherapy and the influence that factors such as co-morbidities, performance status and patient choice play in these decisions.

To determine which concomitant boost technique is dosimetrically superior in the treatment of breast cancer; volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT) or fixed field intensity-modulated radiotherapy (ff-IMRT).

In total, 30 breast patients were re-planned with both VMAT and fixed field concomitant boost intensity-modulated radiotherapy techniques. A hybrid technique was used delivering 80% of the dose through tangential beams and 20% through an integrated boost. A two-tailed t-test sample for means was used to compare the dosimetric differences between the techniques.

Maximum dose was statistically lower for VMAT; 103·2 versus 103·7% for ff-IMRT along with statistically lower V2 Gy doses to the contralateral lung (0·7 versus 1·6%) and heart for both left- (19·0%/22·6%), and right- (5·5%/8·8%) sided patients, respectively. ff-IMRT boasted significantly lower ipsilateral lung V20, V18 and V10 Gy (7·9/8·6/13·1 versus 8·1/8·8/13·4%) than VMAT, respectively. No differences were found with minimum coverage, mean dose and V5 Gy to all organs at risk (OARs).

VMAT and ff-IMRT techniques demonstrate excellent target coverage and OAR sparing facilitated by the hybrid planning technique and deep inspiration breath hold. There is no obvious dosimetrically superior option between the two techniques. Reduced treatment times with VMAT make it more desirable to implement clinically.