Practical Radiation Oncology最新文献

We report the first randomized trial of a virtual reality (VR) headset used on-table during external beam radiation therapy (RT) treatments to reduce anxiety/distress during receipt of RT. A small pilot study was conducted among 10 patients, with VR randomized to start in the first week ("immediate VR") versus the second week ("delayed VR") of treatment. All patients (100%) in the immediate VR group had declines in measured distress scores after their first radiation treatment, compared to only 1 patient (16.7%) in the delayed VR group (P = .048), yet score declines generally did not meet the minimal clinically important difference threshold in the context of overall low distress scores at baseline. By day 5 of treatment, distress score changes were similar between immediate and delayed VR groups. Overall, 80% of patients in the study, including all patients with moderate or high levels of baseline anxiety/distress, reported that on-table VR improved their RT experience and/or they would recommend VR to others. We propose that on-table VR is a readily available, nonpharmacologic intervention that can be used to help reduce anxiety/distress associated with RT and may be particularly helpful at the start of treatment among those with moderate/high baseline levels of anxiety/distress.

Objectives: Spatially fractionated radiation therapy (SFRT) intentionally delivers a heterogeneous dose distribution characterized by alternating regions of high and low doses throughout a tumor. This modality may enhance response to subsequent whole tumor radiation in bulky and radioresistant lesions that are historically less responsive to conventional radiation doses alone. The current study presents a single institution experience with modern era SFRT using predominantly a volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) lattice technique.

Methods: Patients treated with SFRT between 10/2019 and 6/2022 were included for analysis. Patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, and dosimetric parameters were collected retrospectively as part of an institutional review board approved registry and protocol. Descriptive statistics were used to collate patient data and Kaplan Meier analysis were generated for overall survival and local control. Univariate analyses were used to investigate factors associated with outcomes.

Results: A total of 176 patients with 186 sites treated were included. Median age was 64 and the most commonly treated histologies were non-small cell lung cancer and sarcoma. The most common SFRT dose was 20 Gy in 1 fraction with 88% of patients receiving follow-up whole tumor radiotherapy to a median EQD2 dose of 32.5 Gy (=10). Median gross tumor volume (GTV) was 480.5 cc (7.8-10,897.8). Median follow-up was 322 days with 1 year overall survival 37% and 1 year local control 81%. Local control was available in 138 treated sites (131 patients. SFRT factors including dose to 10% (D10%), dose to 90% (D90%), equivalent uniform dose, and mean dose were highly predictive of local control. Grade 3 toxicity occurred in 9 patients. All of these patients received follow-up whole tumor radiation and at least two of these were attributable to unexpected rapid regression of tumor.

Conclusions: SFRT is a promising technique that appears to confer good local control across a disparate group of patients with bulky and radioresistant tumors. Dosimetric parameters of SFRT treatment plans may be independent predictors of local control. Further investigation is warranted as are prospective trials to evaluate the role of SFRT in both the palliative and definitive setting.

Purpose: Local recurrence of prostate cancer (PCa) after radiation therapy (RT) typically occurs at the site of dominant tumor burden, and recent evidence confirms that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) guided tumor dose escalation improves outcomes. With the emergence of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET), we hypothesize that PSMA-PET and MRI may not equally depict the region most at risk of recurrence after RT.

Methods and materials: Patients with intermediate- to high-risk PCa and MRI plus PSMA-PET performed before RT were identified. The sextant most at risk of recurrence was defined as the pathologically dominant region with peak biopsy percentage core length involvement and any sextant with ≥ 40% percentage core length involvement (pathologic gross tumor volume [pGTV], per prior work). Imaging methods were reviewed independently to compare GTVs with pGTVs most at risk of recurrence. A paired chi-square test was employed for analysis.

Results: Eighty-eight patients (n = 88) were identified. Overall, there were no differences in the sensitivity of MRI and PSMA-PET for identifying the pGTV most at risk of recurrence. However, PSMA-PET demonstrated a trend of improved sensitivity for high-risk PCa compared with MRI (n = 46, 96% vs 87%, P = .06), while MRI outperformed PSMA-PET for the intermediate-risk group (n = 42, 93% vs 81%, P = .03). PSMA-PET showed lower specificity, misidentifying GTV in uninvolved pathologic sextants for 12% of intermediate-risk patients, whereas MRI was faultless (12% vs 0%, P = .03). MRI and PSMA-PET each misidentified uninvolved sextants for 9% of patients in the high-risk group.

Conclusions: MRI demonstrates superior sensitivity in identifying the region most at risk of RT recurrence for intermediate-risk PCa, whereas PSMA-PET may add value for some high-risk patients. Informed by sextant biopsy information and MRI, clinicians should consider integrating PSMA-PET for patients with high-risk diseases when delineating GTVs.

This study introduces RadOncCalc, a mobile and web-based platform designed to consolidate oncology research and guidelines into one accessible tool for radiation oncologists. By providing up-to-date dose constraints and contouring guidelines, RadOncCalc enhances clinical decision-making and patient care quality in radiation oncology.

Rectal cancer recurrence after prior radiation therapy presents a difficult treatment challenge. Salvage treatment can be curative; however, it often requires multimodality therapy which can come with significant treatment-related morbidity. Reirradiation is a common part of treatment considerations in this setting and presents challenges in balancing appropriately aggressive therapy to improve disease control and cure rates with the addition of excess toxicity. Surgery remains the mainstay of curative salvage therapy for locally recurrent rectal cancer (LRRC) after prior radiation. Preoperative reirradiation improves R0 resection rates and local control and is associated with improved disease control outcomes. Altered fractionation and intraoperative radiation therapy are often used to improve the therapeutic ratio in the setting of reirradiation for LRRC. Herein, we discuss the evidence supporting multimodality salvage therapy for LRRC, including the importance of surgical salvage, the benefits of reirradiation, various approaches for reirradiation, and treatment-associated toxicities. Finally, we provide our recommendations for how to approach reirradiation for locally recurrent rectal cancer.

Purpose: The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) has recently published new guidelines for the eligibility for partial breast irradiation (PBI). This study aims to evaluate the eligibility rates of PBI according to the ASTRO 2017 and 2024 guidelines.

Methods and materials: Patients diagnosed with pTis-T2N0 breast cancer in 2019 from 3 tertiary medical centers were accrued. All patients received standard treatment consisting of breast-conserving surgery followed by radiation therapy. Subsequently, patients were classified according to the ASTRO 2017 and 2024 guidelines.

Results: For invasive breast cancer, 785 patients were included, among whom 192 received PBI. Classification according to the ASTRO guidelines showed a substantial increase in the proportion of patients eligible for PBI: 19.2% were classified as "suitable" under the ASTRO 2017 guidelines, while 42.4% were classified as "strongly recommended" under the ASTRO 2024 guidelines. Among 286 patients diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), 50 (17.5%) received PBI. The proportion of PBI-eligible patients nearly doubled, from 27.3% under the ASTRO 2017 guidelines to 51.7% under the ASTRO 2024 guidelines. The expanded age criterion from 50 to 40 years and the removal of the clear resection margin requirement were key factors contributing to this substantial increase in both invasive breast cancer and DCIS.

Conclusions: The eligibility for PBI has dramatically increased for both invasive breast cancer and DCIS under the ASTRO 2024 guidelines. These findings suggest a potential for increased use of PBI, offering individualized and optimized treatment options in early breast cancer.

Purpose: We sent surveys to a large number of radiation oncologists with active thoracic cancer practices and applied the Delphi method over 3 rounds to generate consensus dose-volume histogram metrics. We used these results to create consensus-based organs-at-risk dose constraints and target goal templates for practical implementation.

Methods and materials: In this institutional review board-approved study, data were collected using REDCap electronic data capture on a secure server. Radiation oncologists identified from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited departments' websites were asked to confirm their self-identification as thoracic radiation oncologists and nominate other respondents. All invitees were asked to complete 3 rounds of questions related to normal tissue constraints, target coverage metrics, prescribing practices, and other planning considerations. Preliminary consensus statements were presented in the second round of surveys for voting on a 5-point Likert scale. The third and last round of surveys presented the iterated consensus statements and target coverage metric statements for final voting. The high consensus was predefined as ≥ 75% agreement.

Results: Eighty-three (42.8%) of 194 invitees completed at least 1 round of surveys. The group included a diversity of gender, geography, and clinical settings. Response rates were 83%, 57%, and 55%, respectively, for the 3 rounds. By the end of the process, 48 of 96 (50%) originally proposed normal tissue dose constraint statements were iterated to consensus, and 5 of 7 (71%) proposed target coverage metric statements achieved consensus. These were used to create crowdsourced treatment planning templates.

Conclusion: This study achieved broad-based consensus-building on ideal and acceptable dose constraints for conventional, twice-daily, and stereotactic thoracic radiation therapy. Future directions could include extending this approach to other disease sites, studying the influence of widespread implementation on treatment planning, or facilitating the development of community consensus around emergent or controversial questions.

Purpose: With the results of several recently published clinical trials, this guideline focused update provides evidence-based recommendations for the indications and dose-fractionation regimens for neoadjuvant radiation therapy (RT), optimal sequencing of RT and systemic therapy in the context of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), and considerations for selective omission of RT and surgery for rectal cancer.

Methods: The American Society for Radiation Oncology convened a multidisciplinary task force to update 3 key questions that focused on the role of RT for patients with operable rectal cancer. The key questions addressed (1) indications for neoadjuvant RT, (2) selection of neoadjuvant regimens, and (3) indications for consideration of a nonoperative management (NOM) or local excision approach after definitive/preoperative chemoradiation. Recommendations were based on a systematic literature review and created using a predefined consensus-building methodology and system for quality of evidence grading and strength of recommendation.

Results: For patients with stage II-III rectal cancer, neoadjuvant RT was strongly recommended; however, among patients deemed at lower risk of locoregional recurrence, consideration of omission of neoadjuvant RT was conditionally recommended in favor of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with a favorable treatment response or upfront surgery. For patients with T3-T4 and node-positive rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant RT, a TNT approach was strongly recommended. Among patients with higher risk of locoregional recurrence, TNT with chemotherapy before or after long-course chemoradiation was strongly recommended, whereas TNT with short-course RT followed by chemotherapy was conditionally recommended. For patients with rectal cancer for whom NOM is a priority, concurrent chemoradiation followed by consolidation chemotherapy was strongly recommended. Selection of RT dose-fractionation regimen, sequencing of therapies, and consideration of NOM should be determined by multidisciplinary consensus and based on disease extent, disease location, patient preferences, and quality of life considerations.

Conclusions: The task force proposed recommendations to inform best clinical practices on the use of RT for rectal cancer with strong emphasis on multidisciplinary care. Future studies should focus on further addressing optimal treatment regimens to allow for more personalized recommendations based on individual risk stratification and patient priorities regarding quality of life.

Purpose: We report the financial toxicity and quality-of-life outcomes of our prospective phase 1 dose-escalation study of 5-fraction stereotactic partial breast irradiation (S-PBI) for early-stage breast cancer.

Materials and methods: Women with unifocal in situ or invasive epithelial histologies, clinical stages 0, I, or II with tumor size < 3 cm treated with lumpectomy were enrolled in our phase 1 5-fraction S-PBI dose-escalation trial. Our institutionally generated questionnaire on the "Patient Perspective Cost and Convenience of Care" and the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level questionnaire were administered to patients treated at follow-up.

Results: Between 2010 and 2015, 68 of the 75 patients who enrolled and completed treatment on trial completed at least some component of either the EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level questionnaire or the "Patient Perspective Cost and Convenience of Care" questionnaire. Nearly all patients reported very high satisfaction with their treatment overall, particularly the shortened length of treatment. Over half of the patients reported some level of financial toxicity (FT) despite a significantly shortened treatment time. Patients who reported any FT were significantly younger than patients with no financial burden of treatment (means 59.2 and 63.7, respectively, P = .03). There was no difference in those who reported any level of FT based on patient race, ethnicity, marital, or employment status. This S-PBI regimen did not significantly affect quality of life over a 4-year follow-up.

Conclusions: These patient-reported outcomes suggest that the use of accelerated partial breast irradiation may offer low FT rates in breast cancer care, particularly for disadvantaged patient groups.

Purpose: Tracking patient doses in radiation oncology is challenging because of disparate electronic systems from various vendors. Treatment planning systems (TPS), radiation oncology information systems (ROIS), and electronic health records (EHR) lack uniformity, complicating dose tracking and reporting. To address this, we examined practices in multiple radiation oncology settings and proposed guidelines for current systems.

Methods and materials: A survey was conducted among members of various professional groups to understand dose reporting practices in TPS, ROIS, and EHR systems. The aim was to identify consistent components and develop guidelines.

Results: We identified 6 treatment scenarios where current ROIS defaults fail to accurately represent dose totals. A standardized approach involving 3 reference point types - primary treatment plan reference, dose check, and prescription tracking - was proposed to address these scenarios. Standardizing naming conventions for reference points was also recommended for easier integration with EHRs. The approach requires minimal modifications to existing systems and facilitates easier data transfer and display in EHRs.

Conclusions: Standardizing reference points in commercial TPS and ROIS can bridge infrastructure gaps and improve dose tracking in complex clinical scenarios. This standardization, aligned with the American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Task Group (TG) 263, paves the way for continual development of automated, standardized, interoperable tools, enhancing the ease of sharing reference point information.