Action mechanisms of therapeutic alliance in stepped and digital interventions remain unclear.

(a) To compare the development of therapeutic alliance between psychosocial treatment as usual (PTAU) and a stepped digital intervention designed to prevent distress in cancer patients; (b) to analyse the level of agreement between patients’ and therapists’ therapeutic alliance ratings; and (c) to explore variables associated with therapeutic alliance in the digital intervention.

A multicentre randomised controlled trial with 184 newly diagnosed breast cancer women was conducted. Patients were assigned to digital intervention or PTAU. Therapeutic alliance was assessed at 3, 6 and 12 months after inclusion using the working alliance inventory for patients and therapists. Age, usability (system usability scale), satisfaction (visual analogue scale), type and amount of patient–therapist communication were analysed as associated variables.

Patients and therapists established high therapeutic alliance in the digital intervention, although significantly lower compared with PTAU. The development of patients’ therapeutic alliance did not differ between interventions, unlike that of the therapists. No agreement was found between patients’ and therapists’ therapeutic alliance ratings. Patients’ therapeutic alliance was associated with usability and satisfaction with app, whereas therapists’ therapeutic alliance was associated with satisfaction with monitoring platform.

A stepped digital intervention for cancer patients could develop and maintain strong therapeutic alliance. Neither the type nor amount of communication affected patients’ therapeutic alliance, suggesting that flexible and available digital communication fosters a sense of care and connection. The association between usability and satisfaction with digital tools highlights their importance as key therapeutic alliance components in digital settings.

Standard external beam radiotherapy is a treatment option for patients with localised prostate cancer and is used in patients with low-, intermediate- and high-risk disease with androgen deprivation according to the risk of the disease. In the last few years, hypofractionated radiotherapy has been demonstrated to be as safe as standard radiotherapy if given over a shorter time than standard radiotherapy with larger doses per fraction. External radiotherapy for localised prostate cancer typically delivers 37–42 fractions of 1·8–2·0 Gy per fraction given 5 days per week over 7·5–8·5 weeks. Hypofractionated radiotherapy delivers 20–28 fractions of 2·5–2·6 Gy per fraction given 5 days per week over 4–5·6 weeks.

A retrospective analysis of assessment of 30 patients was undertaken from 2016 to 2018. The aim of this study was to evaluate the 2-year outcomes of 30 patients with prostate cancer treated with hypofractionated radiotherapy 70 Gy in 28 fractions.

Biochemical failure with hypofractionated radiotherapy was found in a total of 20% of patients. In the classification by risk groups, there were no biochemical failures in low-risk patients; in the low intermediate course, 3·3% of patients; in the high intermediate group, 3·3% patients; and in the high-risk group, the largest documented biochemical failure was in 13·3% of patients. For acute urinary toxicity, grade I was 56·6%; grade II, 6·6%. For acute rectal toxicity, grade I was 46·6%; grade II, 3·3%.

This is one of the first studies of hypofractionated radiotherapy in prostate cancer in Latin America, and the results of this study demonstrated that the outcomes were similar to the standard regimen in all risk groups.