Practical Radiation Oncology最新文献

Purpose

We aimed to develop and investigate positional reproducibility using a fixation device (Unity Brain tumor Immobilization Device [UBID]) in patients with brain tumor undergoing magnetic resonance (MR)-guided radiation therapy (RT) with a 1.5 Tesla (T) MR-linear accelerator (MR-LINAC) to evaluate its feasibility in clinical practice and report representative cases of patients with central nervous system (CNS) tumor.

Materials and Methods

Quantitative analysis was performed by comparing images obtained by placing only the MR phantom on the couch with those obtained by placing UBID next to the MR phantom. Twenty patients who underwent RT for CNS tumors using 1.5T MR-LINAC between June and October 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Among them, 5 did not use UBID, whereas 15 used UBID. The positional reproducibility of UBID was evaluated using the median interfractional and intrafractional errors in the first 10 fractions.

Results

Each MR quality factor of the MR phantom with UBID satisfied the criteria presented by Elekta. Median values of median shifts in the mediolateral, anteroposterior, and craniocaudal axes for interfractional errors were 2.98, 2.35, and 1.40 mm, respectively. For intrafractional errors, the median values were 0.05, 0.03, and 0.06 mm, respectively. The median values of the median rotations in pitch, roll, and yaw for both interfractional and intrafractional rotations were 0.00°. One patient diagnosed with an optic nerve sheath meningioma received RT with motion monitoring during irradiation. In 2 patients, changes in the tumor cavity and residual lesions were observed in the MRI obtained using 1.5T MR-LINAC on the day of the first treatment and immediately before the 21^st fraction, respectively; therefore, offline/online adaptation was performed.

Conclusions

The reproducible and immobile UBID is clinically feasible in patients with CNS tumors receiving RT with 1.5T MR-LINAC. Based on our initial experience, we developed a workflow for 1.5T MR-LINAC treatment of CNS tumors.

Purpose

Soft tissue sarcomas (STSs) of the head and neck (H&N) are rare malignancies that are challenging to manage. We sought to describe the outcomes of patients treated with curative intent using combined surgery and radiation therapy (RT) for H&N STS.

Methods and Materials

We performed a single-institution retrospective review of patients with nonmetastatic STS of the H&N who were treated from 1968 to 2020. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate disease-specific survival (DSS) and local control (LC). Multivariable analyses (MVAs) were conducted using Cox proportional hazards model.

Results

One hundred ninety-two patients had a median follow-up of 82 months. Tumors arose in the neck (n = 50, 26%), paranasal sinuses (n = 36, 19%), or face (n = 23, 12%). Most patients were treated with postoperative RT (n = 134, 70%). Postoperative RT doses were higher (median, 60 Gy; preoperative dose, 50 Gy; P < .001). Treatment sequence was not associated with LC (preoperative RT, 78% [63%-88%]; postoperative RT, 75% [66%-82%]; P = .48). On MVA, positive/uncertain margin was the only variable associated with LC (hazard ratio [HR], 2.54; 95% CI, 1.34-4.82; P = .004). LC was significant on MVA (HR, 4.48; 95% CI, 2.62-7.67; P < .001) for DSS. Patients who received postoperative RT were less likely to experience a major wound complication (7.5% vs 22.4%; HR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.11-0.68; P = .005). There was no difference in the rate of late toxicities between patients who received preoperative or postoperative RT.

Conclusions

H&N STS continues to have relatively poorer LC than STS of the trunk or extremities. We found LC to be associated with DSS. Timing of RT did not impact oncologic or long-term toxicity outcomes; however, preoperative RT did increase the chance of developing a major wound complication.

Purpose

There have been numerous significant ransomware attacks impacting Radiation Oncology in the past 5 years. Research into ransomware attack response in Radiation Oncology has consisted of case reports and descriptive articles and has lacked quantitative studies. The purpose of this work was to identify the significant safety risks to patients being treated with radiation therapy during a ransomware attack scenario, using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis.

Methods and Materials

A multi-institutional and multidisciplinary team conducted a Failure Modes and Effects Analysis by developing process maps and using Risk Priority Number (RPN) scores to quantify the increased likelihood of incidents in a ransomware attack scenario. The situation that was simulated was a ransomware attack that had removed the capability to access the Record and Verify (R&V) system. Five situations were considered: 1) a standard treatment of a patient with and without an R&V, 2) a standard treatment of a patient for the first fraction right after the R&V capabilities are disabled, and 3) 3 situations in which a plan modification was required. RPN scores were compared with and without R&V functionality.

Results

The data indicate that RPN scores increased by 71% (range, 38%-96%) when R&V functionality is disabled compared with a nonransomware attack state where R&V functionality is available. The failure modes with the highest RPN in the simulated ransomware attack state included incorrectly identifying patients on treatment, incorrectly identifying where a patient is in their course of treatment, treating the incorrect patient, and incorrectly tracking delivered fractions.

Conclusions

The presented study quantifies the increased risk of incidents when treating in a ransomware attack state, identifies key failure modes that should be prioritized when preparing for a ransomware attack, and provides data that can be used to guide future ransomware resiliency research.

Purpose

Radiopharmaceutical therapy (RPT) is a rapidly growing treatment modality. Though uncommon, patients may experience complications during their RPT treatment, which may trigger a rapid response from the hospital team. However, members of this team are typically not familiar with precautions for radiation safety. During these events, it is important to prioritize the patient's health over all else. There are some practices that can help minimize the risk of radiation contamination spread and exposure to staff while tending to the patient.

Methods and Materials

We formed a team to develop a standard protocol for handling patient emergencies during RPT treatment. This team consisted of an authorized user, radiation safety officer, medical physicist, nurse, RPT administration staff, and a quality/safety coordinator. The focus for developing this standardized protocol for RPT patient emergencies was 3-fold: (1) stabilize the patient; (2) reduce radiation exposure to staff; and (3) limit the spread of radiation contamination.

Results

We modified our hospital's existing rapid response protocol to account for the additional staff and tasks needed to accomplish all 3 of these goals. Each team member was assigned specific responsibilities, which include serving as a gatekeeper to restrict traffic, managing the crash cart, performing chest compressions, timing chest compressions, documenting the situation, and monitoring/managing radiation safety in the area. We developed a small, easy-to-read card for rapid response staff to read while they are en route to the area so they can be aware of and prepare for the unique circumstances that RPT treatments present.

Conclusions

Though rapid response events with RPT patients are uncommon, it is important to have a standardized protocol for how to handle these situations beforehand rather than improvise in the moment. We have provided an example of how our team adapted our hospital's current rapid response protocol to accommodate RPT patients.

Radiation therapy is a common treatment modality offered to patients with localized prostate cancer. It can be associated with early radiation-induced toxicities including dysuria, nocturia, frequency, urgency, spasm, and, rarely, hematuria. Early toxicities usually resolve once the treatment period has ended. Chronic toxicities are less common, and rarely, patients may experience radiation-induced hemorrhagic cystitis and hematuria months or years after radiation. We herein describe the case of a 65-year-old man with a past medical history of type-2 diabetes mellitus who experienced hemorrhagic cystitis for months following his radiation therapy. The patient was on sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor therapy (empagliflozin), which we highlight as a potential risk factor for hemorrhagic cystitis. After cessation of Jardiance and initiation of semaglutide (GLP-1 agonist), his urinary symptoms significantly improved. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first such case reported.

Purpose

This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for palliative external beam radiation therapy (RT) in symptomatic bone metastases.

Methods

The ASTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions regarding palliative RT in symptomatic bone metastases. Based on a systematic review by the Agency for Health Research and Quality, recommendations using predefined consensus-building methodology were established; evidence quality and recommendation strength were also assessed.

Results

For palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases, RT is recommended for managing pain from bone metastases and spine metastases with or without spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Regarding other modalities with RT, for patients with spine metastases causing spinal cord or cauda equina compression, surgery and postoperative RT are conditionally recommended over RT alone. Furthermore, dexamethasone is recommended for spine metastases with spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Patients with nonspine bone metastases requiring surgery are recommended postoperative RT. Symptomatic bone metastases treated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy in 1 fraction (800 cGy/1 fx), 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Spinal cord or cauda equina compression in patients who are ineligible for surgery and receiving conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 1600 cGy/2 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 3000 cGy/10 fx. Symptomatic bone metastases in selected patients with good performance status without surgery or neurologic symptoms/signs are conditionally recommended stereotactic body RT over conventional palliative RT. Spine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, 2400 cGy/6 fx, or 2000 cGy/8 fx; nonspine bone metastases reirradiated with conventional RT are recommended 800 cGy/1 fx, 2000 cGy/5 fx, or 2400 cGy/6 fx. Determination of an optimal RT approach/regimen requires whole person assessment, including prognosis, previous RT dose if applicable, risks to normal tissues, quality of life, cost implications, and patient goals and values. Relatedly, for patient-centered optimization of treatment-related toxicities and quality of life, shared decision making is recommended.

Conclusions

Based on published data, the ASTRO task force's recommendations inform best clinical practices on palliative RT for symptomatic bone metastases.

Purpose

Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) is a distinct disease from other head and neck tumors. This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on the critical decisions in its curative treatment, including both definitive and postoperative radiation therapy (RT) management.

Methods

ASTRO convened a task force to address 5 key questions on the use of RT for management of HPV-associated OPSCC. These questions included indications for definitive and postoperative RT and chemoradiation; dose-fractionation regimens and treatment volumes; preferred RT techniques and normal tissue considerations; and posttreatment management decisions. The task force did not address indications for primary surgery versus RT. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for grading evidence quality and recommendation strength.

Results

Concurrent cisplatin is recommended for patients receiving definitive RT with T3-4 disease and/or 1 node >3 cm, or multiple nodes. For similar patients who are ineligible for cisplatin, concurrent cetuximab, carboplatin/5-fluorouracil, or taxane-based systemic therapy are conditionally recommended. In the postoperative setting, RT with concurrent cisplatin (either schedule) is recommended for positive surgical margins or extranodal extension. Postoperative RT alone is recommended for pT3-4 disease, >2 nodes, or a single node >3 cm. Observation is conditionally recommended for pT1-2 disease and a single node ≤3 cm without other risk factors. For patients treated with definitive RT with concurrent systemic therapy, 7000 cGy in 33 to 35 fractions is recommended, and for patients receiving postoperative RT without positive surgical margins and extranodal extension, 5600 to 6000 cGy is recommended. For all patients receiving RT, intensity modulated RT over 3-dimensional techniques with reduction in dose to critical organs at risk (including salivary and swallowing structures) is recommended. Reassessment with positron emission tomography-computed tomography is recommended approximately 3 months after definitive RT/chemoradiation, and neck dissection is recommended for convincing evidence of residual disease; for equivocal positron emission tomography-computed tomography findings, either neck dissection or repeat imaging is recommended.

Conclusions

The role and practice of RT continues to evolve for HPV-associated OPSCC, and these guidelines inform best clinical practice based on the available evidence.