Search

Background: Patients undergoing sublobar resection for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer may receive adjuvant radiation therapy in an effort to improve outcomes despite limited data regarding its efficacy.Methods: Using the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End-Results (SEER) registry we identified patients diagnosed with stage I non-small cell lung cancer between 1988 and 2003 who were definitively treated with sublobar surgical resection with or without adjuvant external beam radiation therapy. Kaplan-Meier, Cox regression, and propensity-score-matched survival analyses were performed to evaluate the effect of adjuvant external beam radiation therapy on survival.Results: A total of 5,908 eligible cases were identified: 493 received external beam radiation therapy and 5,415 received no additional local-regional treatment. The use of external beam radiation therapy was associated with significantly worse median overall and disease-specific survival compared with no additional local-regional therapy: 31 and 45 months vs 51 and 98 months, respectively (P < .001). On multivariate analysis, the most significant predictor of death was the use of adjuvant radiation therapy (hazard ratio 1.505; 95% CI, 1.318-1.717; P < .001). The survival detriment associated with external beam radiation therapy remained after propensity-score-matched analysis.Conclusions: The use of adjuvant external beam radiation therapy is associated with a significant decrease in overall and disease-specific survival for patients with T1-2N0M0 non-small cell lung cancer treated with sublobar resection. Although this finding may be related to covariables not reported in SEER, such as margin status, chemotherapy use, radiation dose, and portal, alternative radiation treatment strategies should be explored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poster: Physics track: Radiobiological and predictive modelling, and radiomics PO-1550: Radiomics characteristics correlate with immune activation and HPV status in head and neck cancer J.H. Oh, E. Katsoulakis, N. Riaz, Y. Yu, A. Apte, J. Leeman, N. Katabi, L. Morris, T. Chan, V. Hatzoglou, N. Lee, J. Deasy. [Extracted from the article]

Purpose: Safety, technical feasibility, and clinical outcomes of temporary organ displacement (TOD) prior to stereotactic body radiation (SBRT) over the past three years are presented. Materials and Methods: Between 2010 and 2013, 19 patients underwent image guided TOD at our institution. All-purpose drainage catheters (APD) (8.5-10.2 F) were placed in the potential space between the gross tumor volume (GTV) and the organ at risk (OAR) (rectum/bowel n=14, kidney n=4, rectum/kidney n=1). Normal saline with diluted Iohexol 140 (80-1000 mL, mean: 232.6 mL, median: 135 mL) was injected via the APD and minimum displacement (mean: 18.3 mm, median: 18 mm) was verified by CT imaging in the proposed position of SBRT (supine). Simulation was performed immediately after TOD. Two to five days later, displacement was repeated by infusion of saline via APD prior to SBRT. The APD was removed after SBRT. Radiation doses to OAR and planning tumor volume (PTV) were calculated before and after TOD. To determine statistical significance of any differences between the two groups, two-tailed permutation test was performed on each of the dosimetric measures. Results: TOD was technically successful in 84.2% (16/19) of patients. In 3 patients no displacement was achieved despite successful placement of APD. One patient developed abdominal pain after TOD and was admitted for overnight observation. In two patients the APD's required exchange prior to SBRT due to obstruction. In critical radiation dosimetric domains such as the minimum dose delivered, displacing critical OAR away from the tumor significantly increased the dose of radiation that could be administered to the GTV by an average of 25%-42% (p=0.015 and 0.021 respectively) while reducing mean radiation dose to OAR (bowel: 39%, kidney: 25%, p= 0.008 and 0.023). No patient developed hemorrhage or infection from TOD. There were no complications associated with SBRT. Conclusion: Image guided TOD is a safe and feasible novel technique which facilitates safe delivery of higher doses of radiation to the tumor while reducing dose to OAR. Our experience with this technique over the past three years is promising. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Our review aims to clarify the incidence of carotid artery stenosis, risks of development, screening, management, and primary prevention strategies documented in the literature after radiation therapy for head and neck cancers. The high prevalence of carotid stenosis after radiation therapy for head and neck cancers has made surveillance and risk stratification critical. In addition to general cardiovascular risk factors such as smoking, diabetes, and dyslipidemia, risk factors for carotid artery stenosis after head and neck radiation included total plaque score, radiotherapy use and dosage, length of time after radiotherapy, and age greater than 50. Cancer subtype, namely nasopharyngeal cancer, may be correlated with increased risk as well, though contrasting results have been found. Interestingly, however, no significant relationship has been found between radiotherapy dose and stroke risk. Surgical management of post-radiation carotid stenosis is similar to that of stenosis unrelated to radiation, with carotid endarterectomy considered to be the gold standard treatment and carotid artery stenting being an acceptable, less-invasive alternative. Medical management of these patients has not been well-studied, but antiplatelet therapy, statins, and blood pressure control may be beneficial. The mainstay of screening for radiation-induced stenosis has been Doppler ultrasound, with measurement of changes in the intima-media thickness being a primary marker of disease development. A literature review was carried out using the MeSH terms "Carotid Artery Stenosis," "Head and Neck Neoplasms," and "Radiotherapy.", Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The use of digital twins (DTs) has proliferated across various fields and industries, with a recent surge in the healthcare sector. The concept of digital twin for health (DT4H) holds great promise to revolutionize the entire healthcare system, including management and delivery, disease treatment and prevention, and health well-being maintenance, ultimately improving human life. The rapid growth of big data and continuous advancement in data science (DS) and artificial intelligence (AI) have the potential to significantly expedite DT research and development by providing scientific expertise, essential data, and robust cybertechnology infrastructure. Although various DT initiatives have been underway in the industry, government, and military, DT4H is still in its early stages. This paper presents an overview of the current applications of DTs in healthcare, examines consortium research centers and their limitations, and surveys the current landscape of emerging research and development opportunities in healthcare. We envision the emergence of a collaborative global effort among stakeholders to enhance healthcare and improve the quality of life for millions of individuals worldwide through pioneering research and development in the realm of DT technology., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The ongoing lack of data standardization severely undermines the potential for automated learning from the vast amount of information routinely archived in electronic health records (EHRs), radiation oncology information systems, treatment planning systems, and other cancer care and outcomes databases. We sought to create a standardized ontology for clinical data, social determinants of health, and other radiation oncology concepts and interrelationships., Methods and Materials: The American Association of Physicists in Medicine's Big Data Science Committee was initiated in July 2019 to explore common ground from the stakeholders' collective experience of issues that typically compromise the formation of large inter- and intra-institutional databases from EHRs. The Big Data Science Committee adopted an iterative, cyclical approach to engaging stakeholders beyond its membership to optimize the integration of diverse perspectives from the community., Results: We developed the Operational Ontology for Oncology (O3), which identified 42 key elements, 359 attributes, 144 value sets, and 155 relationships ranked in relative importance of clinical significance, likelihood of availability in EHRs, and the ability to modify routine clinical processes to permit aggregation. Recommendations are provided for best use and development of the O3 to 4 constituencies: device manufacturers, centers of clinical care, researchers, and professional societies., Conclusions: O3 is designed to extend and interoperate with existing global infrastructure and data science standards. The implementation of these recommendations will lower the barriers for aggregation of information that could be used to create large, representative, findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable data sets to support the scientific objectives of grant programs. The construction of comprehensive "real-world" data sets and application of advanced analytical techniques, including artificial intelligence, holds the potential to revolutionize patient management and improve outcomes by leveraging increased access to information derived from larger, more representative data sets., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: For patients with lung cancer, it is critical to provide evidence-based radiation therapy to ensure high-quality care. The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program partnered with the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) as part of the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance to develop lung cancer quality metrics and assess quality of care as a pilot program in 2016. This article presents recently updated consensus quality measures and dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints., Methods and Materials: A series of measures and performance standards were reviewed and developed by a Blue-Ribbon Panel of lung cancer experts in conjunction with ASTRO in 2022. As part of this initiative, quality, surveillance, and aspirational metrics were developed for (1) initial consultation and workup; (2) simulation, treatment planning, and treatment delivery; and (3) follow-up. The DVH metrics for target and organ-at-risk treatment planning dose constraints were also reviewed and defined., Results: Altogether, a total of 19 lung cancer quality metrics were developed. There were 121 DVH constraints developed for various fractionation regimens, including ultrahypofractionated (1, 3, 4, or 5 fractions), hypofractionated (10 and 15 fractionations), and conventional fractionation (30-35 fractions)., Conclusions: The devised measures will be implemented for quality surveillance for veterans both inside and outside of the VA system and will provide a resource for lung cancer-specific quality metrics. The recommended DVH constraints serve as a unique, comprehensive resource for evidence- and expert consensus-based constraints across multiple fractionation schemas., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Clinical data collection related to prostate cancer (PCa) care is often unstructured or heterogeneous among providers, resulting in a high risk for ambiguity in its meaning when sharing or analyzing data. Ontologies, which are shareable formal (i.e., computable) representations of knowledge, can address these challenges by enabling machine-readable semantic interoperability. The purpose of this study was to identify PCa-specific key data elements (KDEs) for standardization in clinic and research., Methods: A modified Delphi method using iterative online surveys was performed to report a consensus agreement on KDEs by a multidisciplinary panel of 39 PCa specialists. Data elements were divided into three themes in PCa and included (1) treatment-related toxicities (TRT), (2) patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), and (3) disease control metrics (DCM)., Results: The panel reached consensus on a thirty-item, two-tiered list of KDEs focusing mainly on urinary and rectal symptoms. The Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC-26) questionnaire was considered most robust for PROM multi-domain monitoring, and granular KDEs were defined for DCM., Conclusions: This expert consensus on PCa-specific KDEs has served as a foundation for a professional society-endorsed, publicly available operational ontology developed by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Big Data Sub Committee (BDSC).

Purpose: Using evidence-based radiation therapy to direct care for patients with breast cancer is critical to standardize practice, improve safety, and optimize outcomes. To address this need, the Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program (NROP) established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance Program to develop clinical quality measures (QMs). The VA NROP contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission 5 Blue Ribbon Panels for breast, lung, prostate, rectal, and head and neck cancers., Methods and Materials: The Breast Cancer Blue Ribbon Panel experts worked collaboratively with the NROP to develop consensus QMs for use throughout the VA system, establishing a set of QMs for patients in several areas, including consultation and work-up; simulation, treatment planning, and treatment; and follow-up care. As part of this initiative, consensus dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints were outlined., Results: In total, 36 QMs were established. Herein, we review the process used to develop QMs and final consensus QMs pertaining to all aspects of radiation patient care, as well as DVH constraints., Conclusions: The QMs and expert consensus DVH constraints are intended for ongoing quality surveillance within the VA system and centers providing community care for Veterans. They are also available for use by greater non-VA community measures of quality care for patients with breast cancer receiving radiation., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: There are no agreed upon measures to comprehensively determine the quality of radiation oncology (RO) care delivered for prostate cancer. Consequently, it is difficult to assess the implementation of scientific advances and adherence to best practices in routine clinical practice. To address this need, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National Radiation Oncology Program established the VA Radiation Oncology Quality Surveillance (VA ROQS) Program to develop clinical quality measures to assess the quality of RO care delivered to Veterans with cancer. This article reports the prostate cancer consensus measures., Methods and Materials: The VA ROQS Program contracted with the American Society for Radiation Oncology to commission a Blue Ribbon Panel of prostate cancer experts to develop a set of evidence-based measures and performance expectations. From February to June 2021, the panel developed quality, aspirational, and surveillance measures for (1) initial consultation and workup, (2) simulation, treatment planning, and delivery, and (3) follow-up. Dose-volume histogram (DVH) constraints to be used as quality measures for definitive and post-prostatectomy radiation therapy were selected. The panel also identified the optimal Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, version 5.0 (CTCAE V5.0), toxicity terms to assess in follow-up., Results: Eighteen prostate-specific measures were developed (13 quality, 2 aspirational, and 3 surveillance). DVH metrics tailored to conventional, moderately hypofractionated, and ultrahypofractionated regimens were identified. Decision trees to determine performance for each measure were developed. Eighteen CTCAE V5.0 terms were selected in the sexual, urinary, and gastrointestinal domains as highest priority for assessment during follow-up., Conclusions: This set of measures and DVH constraints serves as a tool for assessing the comprehensive quality of RO care for prostate cancer. These measures will be used for ongoing quality surveillance and improvement among veterans receiving care across VA and community sites. These measures can also be applied to clinical settings outside of those serving veterans., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Increasing utilization of comprehensive genomic profiling (CGP) and a growing number of targeted agents (TAs) have led to substantial improvements in outcomes among patients with cancer with actionable mutations. We sought to evaluate real-world experience with off-label TAs among Veterans who underwent CGP., Methods: The National Precision Oncology Program database and VA Corporate Data Warehouse were queried to identify patients who underwent CGP between February 2019 and December 2021 and were prescribed 1 of 73 TAs for malignancy. OncoKB annotations were used to select patients who received off-label TAs based upon CGP results. Chart abstraction was performed to review response, toxicities, and time to progression., Results: Of 18,686 patients who underwent CGP, 2,107 (11%) were prescribed a TA and 169 (0.9%) were prescribed a total of 183 regimens containing off-label TAs for variants in 31 genes. Median age was 68 years and 83% had prior systemic therapy, with 28% receiving three or more lines. Frequency of off-label TA prescriptions was highest for patients undergoing CGP for thyroid (8.6%) and breast (7.6%) cancers. Most patients harbored alterations in BRCA1/BRCA2/ATM (22.5%), ERBB2 (19.5%), and BRAF (19.5%). Among the 160 regimens prescribed > 4 weeks, 43 (27%) led to response. Median progression-free survival and overall survival were 5.3 (4.2-6.5) and 9.7 (7.5-11.9) months, respectively. Patients with OncoKB level 2/3A/3B annotations had longer median progression-free survival (5.8 [4.5-7] months v 3.7 [1.6-7.7] months; hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.82; P = .01) compared with those receiving level 4 treatments., Conclusion: Although administration of off-label TAs is infrequent after CGP, more than one quarter of treatment regimens led to response. TAs associated with level 4 annotations lead to worse outcomes than TAs bearing higher levels of evidence.