The magnetic resonance linear accelerator system (MR Linac) is a novel piece of radiotherapy (RT) equipment allowing the routine application of daily MR-guided treatment adaptation. The hardware design required for such technical capabilities and the increased complexity of the treatment workflow entails a notable departure from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based RT. Patient tolerability of treatment is paramount to RT practice where high compliance is required. Presented is a comparative analysis of how such modality specific characteristics may ultimately impact the patient experience of treatment.

Forty patients undergoing RT for prostate cancer (PCa) on either the MR Linac (n = 20) or a CBCT-based linac (n = 20) were provided with a validated patient reported outcomes measures (PROM’s) questionnaire at fraction 1 and fraction 20. The 18-item questionnaire provided patient responses recorded using a 4-point Likert scale, 0 denoting a response of ‘Not at all’, 1 ‘Slightly’, 2 ‘Moderately’ and 3 signifying ‘Very’. The analysis provided insight into both comparisons between modalities at singular time points (fractions 1 and 20), as well as a temporal analysis within a single modality, denoting changing patient experience.

Patients generally found the MR Linac treatment couch more comfortable, however, found the increase in treatment duration harder to tolerate. Responses for all items remained stable between first and last fraction across both cohorts, indicating minimal temporal variation within a single modality. None of the responses were statistically significant at the 0·01 level.

Whether radiotherapy for PCa is delivered on a CBCT linac or the MR Linac, there is little difference in patient experience with minimal experiential variation within a single modality.

Although symptomatic remission is considered the optimal outcome in depression, this is not always achieved. Furthermore, symptom indicators do not fully capture patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives on remission. Broader indicators of (partial) remission from depression should be considered.

To investigate relevant outcomes of depression treatment in specialist care from patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives and to investigate whether these perspectives differ from each other.

Three focus groups with 11 patients with depression and seven semi-structured interviews with clinicians were conducted exploring their perspectives on remission. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We analysed the transcripts thematically using the phenomenologist approach.

Independently, both patients and clinicians perceived the following outcomes relevant: restoring social functioning and interpersonal relations, regaining quality of life and achieving personal goals. All clinicians emphasised symptom reduction and satisfaction with treatment as relevant outcomes, whereas the former was not an obvious theme in patients. Unlike clinicians, patients made a clear distinction between treatment outcomes in first versus recurrent/chronic depression.

Classically defined study outcomes based on symptom resolution only partly reflect issues considered important by patients and clinicians in specialist depression treatment. Incorporating patients’ and clinicians’ perspectives in the development of measurable end-points makes them more suitable for use in trials and subsequent translation to clinical practice. Furthermore, evaluating patients’ perspectives on treatment outcomes helps in the development of tailored interventions according to patients’ needs.