Search

Patients' understanding of radiation therapy (RT) and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. We aimed to evaluate PE practices of radiation oncologists and interprofessional RT care team members to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive and accessible PE. An anonymous survey was administered to all Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members (10/5/22-11/23/22). Respondent demographics, individual practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. The Fisher exact test compared PE practices by respondent role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. One hundred thirteen Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group members completed the survey (28.2% response rate); RO attendings comprised 68.1% of respondents. Most practiced in an academic setting (85.8%) in North America (80.5%). Institution-specific materials were the most common PE resource used by radiation oncologists (67.6%). Almost half (40.2%) reported that their PE practices differed based on clinical encounter type, with paper handouts commonly used for in-person and multimedia for telehealth visits. Only 57.7% reported access to non-English PE materials. PE practices among radiation oncologists differed according to RT clinical workflow timing (consultation versus simulation versus first RT, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 88.5% versus 49.4% versus 56.3%, P <.01, and paper handouts: 69.0% versus 28.7% versus 16.1%, P <.01. Identified challenges for PE delivery included limited time, administrative barriers to the development or implementation of new materials or practices, and a lack of customized resources for tailored PE. Effective strategies for PE included utilization of visual diagrams, multimedia, and innovative education techniques to personalize PE delivery/resources for a diverse patient population, as well as fostering interprofessional collaboration to reinforce educational content. Radiation oncologists and interprofessional RO team members engage in PE, with most using institution-specific materials often available only in English. PE practices differ according to clinical encounter type and RT workflow timing. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this Pediatric Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (PENTEC) vision paper, challenges and opportunities in the assessment of subsequent neoplasms (SNs) from radiation therapy (RT) are presented and discussed in the context of technology advancement. The paper discusses the current knowledge of SN risks associated with historic, contemporary, and future RT technologies. Opportunities for research and SN mitigation strategies in pediatric patients with cancer are reviewed. Present experience with radiation carcinogenesis is from populations exposed during widely different scenarios. Knowledge gaps exist within clinical cohorts and follow-up; dose-response and volume effects; dose-rate and fractionation effects; radiation quality and proton/particle therapy; age considerations; susceptibility of specific tissues; and risks related to genetic predisposition. The biological mechanisms associated with local and patient-level risks are largely unknown. Future cancer care is expected to involve several available RT technologies, necessitating evidence and strategies to assess the performance of competing treatments. It is essential to maximize the utilization of existing follow-up while planning for prospective data collection, including standardized registration of individual treatment information with linkage across patient databases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To clarify the feasibility and effectiveness of intra-arterial CT angiography (IACTA) for treatment planning of arteriovenous malformation radiosurgery.Methods and Materials: A CT scanner installed in an angiographic examination room was used. Helical IACTA was performed in 22 patients during continuous intra-arterial infusion of contrast medium via the internal carotid or vertebral artery, and dynamic IACTA was performed in 20 of these patients with reconstruction at 0.2-s intervals. The dynamic IACTA was repeated for each 3- or 5-mm increment to encompass the nidus. Subtractions were performed in postembolization cases. A retrospective review of IACTA was performed to assess the effectiveness of dynamic scans.Results: No complications related to the angiographic procedure or CT imaging were detected. High contrast enhancement was obtained for both helical and dynamic IACTA. In 18 of the 20 cases (90%), draining veins were separated from the nidus by using the enhancement patterns, and in 13 cases (65%), feeding arteries were separated.Conclusion: Dynamic IACTA added important information for target-volume determinations. Conventional CT and MRI could be omitted from the protocol, and the period that patients wore the frame was substantially shortened. We conclude that IACTA is a practical and useful method for radiosurgical treatment planning of arteriovenous malformations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

To assess delays in treatment initiation of chemoradiation or radiation alone for patients with advanced stage cervical cancer in Botswana. Females with locally advanced cervical cancer (stages IB2-IVB) were prospectively enrolled in an observational cohort study from 2015 to 2019. We evaluated delays at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 or greater days between the date of diagnosis and treatment initiation. Factors associated with overall survival were modeled with multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression (aHR). Associations between delays in cervical cancer treatment initiation were evaluated via univariable logistic regression. Among the 556 patients included (median age = 47.9 years), 386 (69.4%) were females living with HIV with a median CD4 count of 448.0 cells/μL (IQR, 283.0-647.5 cells/μL) at diagnosis. Most patients had stages 2 (38.1%) or 3 (34.5%) cervical cancer. Early-stage patients experienced longer delays in treatment initiation compared to late-stage patients (P =.033). Early-stage patients with delays ≥90 days and pathology diagnosis between 2016 and 2019 (aHR, 0.34; P <.001) versus <90 days had a decreased risk of mortality, and those with delays ≥90 days and pathology diagnosis before 2016 (aHR, 5.67; P =.022) versus <90 days had an increased risk of mortality. Late-stage patients with delays ≥120 days and pathology diagnosis between 2018 and 2019 (aHR, 1.98; P =.025) versus <120 days had an increased risk of mortality. Early-stage patients with pathology diagnosis between 2016 and 2019 (odds ratio, 2.32; P =.043) versus before 2016 were more likely to experience delays ≥90 days, and late-stage patients who traveled >100 km to the treatment facility (odds ratio, 2.83; P <.001) versus <100 km were more likely to experience delays ≥120 days. Delays in care are common in Botswana, particularly for those living farther from the treatment clinic and at advanced stages. This paper is among the first to show an association between treatment delays and worsened overall survival at advanced stages of cervical cancer, highlighting the need for interventions to help patients receive timely care in global settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapy Working Group (APRTWG) was established in the United States as a grassroots alliance of multidisciplinary radiation oncology professionals—radiation therapists, physicians, dosimetrists, and administrators—located across the country, interested in studying and establishing the Advanced Practice Radiation Therapist (APRT) level of practice in the United States. The APRT model has shown success in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Singapore, and other countries, documenting the value of the APRT to the quality and advancement of clinical care. In the United States, the APRTWG seeks to coordinate activities, align resources, and drive the national agenda to collectively develop and define novel models of care using APRT in line with the evolving needs of patients and the radiation therapy profession. This environmental scan aims to examine the context of radiation oncology medical practice in the United States to inform pathways ahead for a proposed APRT model through a Political, Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental, and Legal (PESTEL) analysis. A literature search was conducted to understand the chronological timeline of the development of APRT during the past 25 years. Items that included the activities, scope of practice, and implementation of APRT nationally and internationally were identified. Papers describing advanced practitioner roles that are commonly found in the multidisciplinary team in radiation oncology both in the United States and internationally, such as physician assistants and nurse practitioners, were excluded. Despite the environmental scan outcome, it is acknowledged that data collation and analysis was not as robust as that anticipated by undertaking a systematic review. Papers were identified by the lead author that aligned with each of the PESTEL factors. Defined broadly, a new care model can adjust how health services are delivered by incorporating best practices in patient care for a specific population, person, or patient cohort. As patients enter different stages of their disease, the purpose of a new model is to provide individuals with the right care, at the right time, by the right team, in the right place. It is clear that the opportunity for positive change and impact on the current state of practice in radiation oncology exists. The environmental scan findings demonstrate the complexities associated with implementing APRT in the United States, with multifactorial political, environmental, societal, technological, economic, and legal aspects to consider. The APRTWG will continue to lead and participate in such activities to demonstrate and identify APRT role opportunities in the United States and drive the nationwide implementation of the APRT level of practice in this country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FLASH radiation therapy (FLASH-RT), delivered with ultrahigh dose rate (UHDR), may allow patients to be treated with less normal tissue toxicity for a given tumor dose compared with currently used conventional dose rate. Clinical trials are being carried out and are needed to test whether this improved therapeutic ratio can be achieved clinically. During the clinical trials, quality assurance and credentialing of equipment and participating sites, particularly pertaining to UHDR-specific aspects, will be crucial for the validity of the outcomes of such trials. This report represents an initial framework proposed by the NRG Oncology Center for Innovation in Radiation Oncology FLASH working group on quality assurance of potential UHDR clinical trials and reviews current technology gaps to overcome. An important but separate consideration is the appropriate design of trials to most effectively answer clinical and scientific questions about FLASH. This paper begins with an overview of UHDR RT delivery methods. UHDR beam delivery parameters are then covered, with a focus on electron and proton modalities. The definition and control of safe UHDR beam delivery and current and needed dosimetry technologies are reviewed and discussed. System and site credentialing for large, multi-institution trials are reviewed. Quality assurance is then discussed, and new requirements are presented for treatment system standard analysis, patient positioning, and treatment planning. The tables and figures in this paper are meant to serve as reference points as we move toward FLASH-RT clinical trial performance. Some major questions regarding FLASH-RT are discussed, and next steps in this field are proposed. FLASH-RT has potential but is associated with significant risks and complexities. We need to redefine optimization to focus not only on the dose but also on the dose rate in a manner that is robust and understandable and that can be prescribed, validated, and confirmed in real time. Robust patient safety systems and access to treatment data will be critical as FLASH-RT moves into the clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consistency of nomenclature within radiation oncology is increasingly important as big data efforts and data sharing become more feasible. Automation of radiation oncology workflows depends on standardized contour nomenclature that enables toxicity and outcomes research, while also reducing medical errors and facilitating quality improvement activities. Recommendations for standardized nomenclature have been published in the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) report from Task Group 263 (TG-263). Transitioning to TG-263 requires creation and management of structure template libraries and retraining of staff, which can be a considerable burden on clinical resources. Our aim is to develop a program that allows users to create TG-263–compliant structure templates in English, Spanish, or French to facilitate data sharing. Fifty-three premade structure templates were arranged by treated organ based on an American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) consensus paper. Templates were further customized with common target structures, relevant organs at risk (OARs) (eg, spleen for anatomically relevant sites such as the gastroesophageal junction or stomach), subsite- specific templates (eg, partial breast, whole breast, intact prostate, postoperative prostate, etc) and brachytherapy templates. An informal consensus on OAR and target coloration was also achieved, although color selections are fully customizable within the program. The resulting program is usable on any Windows system and generates template files in practice-specific Digital Imaging and Communications In Medicine (DICOM) or XML formats, extracting standardized structure nomenclature from an online database maintained by members of the TG-263U1, which ensures continuous access to up-to-date templates. We have developed a tool to easily create and name DICOM radiation therapy (DICOM-RT) structures sets that are TG-263–compliant for all planning systems using the DICOM standard. The program and source code are publicly available via GitHub to encourage feedback from community users for improvement and guide further development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A series of radiobiological models were developed to study tumor control probability (TCP) for stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) of early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) per the Hypofractionated Treatment Effects in the Clinic (HyTEC) working group. This study was conducted to further validate 3 representative models with the recent clinical TCP data ranging from conventional radiation therapy to SBRT of early-stage NSCLC and to determine systematic optimal fractionation regimens in 1 to 30 fractions for radiation therapy of early-stage NSCLC that were found to be model-independent. Recent clinical 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5-year actuarial or Kaplan-Meier TCP data of 9808 patients from 56 published papers were collected for radiation therapy of 2 to 4 Gy per fraction and SBRT of early-stage NSCLC. This data set nearly triples the original HyTEC sample, which was used to further validate the HyTEC model parameters determined from a fit to the clinical TCP data. TCP data from the expanded data set are well described by the HyTEC models with α/β ratios of about 20 Gy. TCP increases sharply with biologically effective dose and reaches an asymptotic maximal plateau, which allows us to determine optimal fractionation schemes for radiation therapy of early-stage NSCLC. The HyTEC radiobiological models with α/β ratios of about 20 Gy determined from the fits to the clinical TCP data for SBRT of early-stage NSCLC describe the recent TCP data well for both radiation therapy of 2 to 4 Gy per fraction and SBRT dose and fractionation schemes of early-stage NSCLC. A steep dose response exists between TCP and biologically effective dose, and TCP reaches an asymptotic maximum. This feature results in model-independent optimal fractionation regimens determined whenever safe for SBRT and hypofractionated radiation therapy of early-stage NSCLC in 1 to 30 fractions to achieve asymptotic maximal tumor control, and T2 tumors require slightly higher optimal doses than T1 tumors. The proposed optimal fractionation schemes are consistent with clinical practice for SBRT of early-stage NSCLC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Taste loss is a major cause of morbidity in patients undergoing head-and-neck irradiation. The relationship between the time course and the degree of taste disorder was studied in both acute and late phases. Methods and Materials: Taste ability was measured by the taste threshold for the four basic tastes using a filter paper disc method in patients before, during, and after radiotherapy. The subjects were divided into two groups. In Group A, the radiation fields included most of the tongue (n = 100), and in Group B the radiation fields did not include the tip of the tongue (n = 18). Results: In Group A, there was a significant impairment of the threshold of all four basic tastes at 3 weeks after starting radiotherapy (RT), and this impairment remained at 8 weeks (p < 0.05). This was not seen in Group B. In Group A, there was no significant difference in the patterns of taste sensitivity change between the high-dose (>20 Gy) and low-dose (≤20 Gy) groups. In the late phase, recovery of taste loss was seen in both groups since 4 months after completing RT. Conclusions: Unless the anterior part of the tongue was irradiated, taste loss was not observed during RT. When the anterior part of the tongue was irradiated, a difference by radiation dose was not observed in the taste loss pattern. Additionally, radiation-induced taste dysfunction appears to be a temporal effect. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The statistical technique of multiple regression, commonly referred to as "multivariable regression," is often used in clinical research to quantify the relationships between multiple predictor variables and a single outcome variable of interest. The foundational theory underpinning multivariable regression assumes that all predictor variables are independent of one another. In other words, the effect of each independent variable is measured by its contribution to the regression equation while all other variables remain unchanged. In the presence of correlations between two or more variables, however, it is impossible to change one variable without a consequent change in the variable(s) it is linked to. This condition, known as "multicollinearity," can introduce errors into multivariable regression models by affecting estimates of the regression coefficients that quantify the relationship between individual predictor variables and the outcome variable. Errors that arise due to violations of the multicollinearity assumption are of special interest to radiation oncology researchers. Because of high levels of correlation among variables derived from points along individual organ dose-volume histogram (DVH) curves, as well as strong intercorrelations among dose-volume parameters in neighboring organs, dosimetric analyses are particularly subject to multicollinearity errors. For example, dose-volume parameters for the heart are strongly correlated not only with other points along the heart DVH curve but are likely also correlated with dose-volume parameters in neighboring organs such as the lung. In this paper, we describe the problem of multicollinearity in accessible terms and discuss examples of violations of the multicollinearity assumption within the radiation oncology literature. Finally, we provide recommendations regarding best practices for identifying and managing multicollinearity in complex data sets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient understanding of radiotherapy (RT) processes and data regarding optimal approaches to patient education (PE) within radiation oncology (RO) are limited. Our objective was to evaluate PE practices and preferences of interprofessional RO providers to inform recommendations for delivering inclusive, accessible, and patient-centered education. An anonymous 17-item online survey, approved by an ethics review board, was administered to all members of the Radiation Oncology Education Collaborative Study Group (ROECSG) between 10/5/22 to 11/23/22. Respondent demographics, provider practices/preferences, and institutional practices were collected. Qualitative items explored key strategies, challenges, and desired resources for PE. Descriptive statistics summarized survey responses. Fisher's exact test compared PE practices by provider role and PE timing. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative responses. A total of 123 ROECSG members, including RO attendings (64%), RO trainees (21%), medical physicists (7%), physician assistants/nurses (2%), and radiation therapists (2%), completed the survey (31% response rate). Most practiced in an academic setting (86%) in North America (82%). The most common PE resources used were custom created institution-specific (61%) and electronic health system generated materials (38%). PE was delivered primarily by one-on-one teaching (72%), paper handouts (69%), and organizational websites (21%) (e.g., RTanswers.org). Almost half (41%) reported that PE practices differed based on type of clinical encounter, for example paper handouts for in-person visits and multimedia for virtual visits. The majority (86%) stated that their institution has disease site-specific PE materials, with nearly all having breast cancer materials (91%). Only 58% reported access to non-English PE materials. RO attendings/trainees were more likely than other team members to deliver PE at consultation (98% vs 71%, p = 0.03). PE practices amongst radiation oncologists differed according to the timing along the RT care path (consultation vs simulation vs first fraction, respectively): one-on-one teaching: 89% vs 49% vs 56%, p<0.01 and paper handouts: 69% vs 28% vs 16%, p<0.01. Key PE strategies included incorporating multimedia resources, personalizing delivery, and repetition at multiple timepoints by the interprofessional team. Limited time, inadequate administrative support, and lack of customized resources were identified as challenges in PE delivery. Interprofessional RO providers engage in PE, with most utilizing institution-specific materials. PE practices differ according to the type of clinical encounter and timing in the RT care path. Increased adoption of multimedia materials and partnerships with patients to tailor PE resources based on language, learning styles, and cultural preferences are needed to foster high-quality, patient-centered PE delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity in oncology as measured by conference abstracts, journal publications and individual authorship trends. Using a reference time frame of 2018 to 2022, we obtained data on the number of abstracts and articles submitted and published from a selection of oncology conferences and journals. To assess individual authorship patterns, we randomly selected 200 articles from 2018 (i.e., the 'index paper') and tracked publications over subsequent years for the first or last authors. Linear time-trend analyses and independent two-sample t-tests were used to assess changes in academic productivity over time, and univariable and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze individual factors predictive of publication rates, including gender, continent, specialty, MD vs. non-MD, and career status (early if within 5 years of training completion vs. late for all others). Data on submitted and published abstracts were available from 5 and 7 conferences, respectively. Both abstract categories demonstrated decreasing values over time but not statistically significant: conference submissions decreased from 15,308 in 2018 to 13,623 in 2022, (p = 0.11), and published abstracts decreased from 13,111 to 11,848, respectively (p = 0.16). Journal submissions were available from 6 journals and increased from 14,142 in 2018 to a peak of 20,241 in 2020 (2018 vs. 2020: p<0.001), and then declined to 15,650 in 2021. Journal publications from 10 journals showed no clear trends over time (p = 0.64). For the author-level analysis, of the 200 authors randomly selected, the majority were male (66.5%), from North America (55.5%), with an MD degree (80.9%, 131/162) and late career (86.6%, 129/149). Most common specialties included surgery (29%), radiation oncology (18.5%), epidemiology/public health (11%) and medical oncology (10%). For articles authored per year, there was no linear trend detected (p = 0.51), although mean number of publications per author peaked in 2020/2021 (papers/year for 2018-2022: 18.1, 18.1, 20.1, 21.2, 19.6). On univariable analysis, factors significantly associated with increasing publication rates were male gender, last author position on index paper, late career status, MDs, speciality of surgery or public/health epidemiology, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01). On multivariable analysis, factors remaining significantly predictive were late career status, MDs, specialty of surgeons or public health/epidemiologists, and authors from Asia (all p<0.01). Conference submissions and publications trended downward from 2018 to 2022. Journal submissions peaked overall in 2020, but did not translate to increases in journal publication rates. Disparities in publication trends were found, based on speciality and geographic regions, including a negative impact on early-career researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]