Search

Purpose: Current guidelines recommend surgery as standard of care for primary lung neuroendocrine tumor (LNET). Given that LNET is a rare clinical entity, there is a lack of literature regarding treatment of LNET with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). We hypothesized that SBRT could lead to effective locoregional tumor control and long-term outcomes., Methods and Materials: We retrospectively reviewed 48 tumors in 46 patients from 11 institutions with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of LNET, treated with primary radiation therapy. Data were collected for patients treated nonoperatively with primary radiation therapy between 2006 and 2020. Patient records were reviewed for lesion characteristics and clinical risk factors. Kaplan-Meier analysis, log-rank tests, and Cox multivariate models were used to compare outcomes., Results: Median age at treatment was 71 years and mean tumor size was 2 cm. Thirty-two lesions were typical carcinoid histology, 7 were atypical, and 9 were indeterminate. The most common SBRT fractionation schedule was 50 to 60 Gy in 5 daily fractions. Overall survival at 3, 6, and 9 years was 64%, 43%, and 26%, respectively. Progression-free survival at 3, 6, and 9 years was 88%, 78%, and 78%, respectively. Local control at 3, 6, and 9 years was 97%, 91%, and 91%, respectively. There was 1 regional recurrence in a paraesophageal lymph node. No grade 3 or higher toxicity was identified., Conclusions: This is the largest series evaluating outcomes in patients with LNET treated with SBRT. This treatment is well tolerated, provides excellent locoregional control, and should be offered as an alternative to surgical resection for patients with early-stage LNET, particularly those who may not be ideal surgical candidates., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic largely suspended in-person scientific meetings because of risk of disease spread. In the era of vaccination and social distancing practices, meetings have begun returning to in-person formats. We surveyed attendees and potential attendees of 2 oncology meetings in the United States to identify rates of mixing behavior and the subsequent rate of self-reported COVID-19 infection., Methods and Materials: We collected via survey reported social mixing behavior and COVID-19 positivity (within 21 days of meeting conclusion) of actual and potential in-person attendees of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Care Symposium held September 24 to 25, 2021, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Annual Meeting held October 24 to 27, 2021. Conference speakers and other participants were identified through publicly available meeting materials and targeted via e-mail when possible. Recruitment of additional attendees and potential attendees was also conducted through a sharable link promoted via oncology newsletters and social media. Descriptive statistics alone were performed owing to low COVID-19 event rates., Results: Response rates from targeted conference participants with publicly available e-mails were 27.4% for the ASCO and 14.3% for the ASTRO meetings. The ASCO survey produced 94 responses (48 in-person attendees). The ASTRO survey produced 370 responses (267 in-person attendees). Across both meetings, 3 of 308 (1.0%) in-person attendees versus 2 of 141 (1.4%) nonattendees tested positive for COVID-19. Low COVID-19 positivity rates were reported among in-person attendees spending more (>20) versus fewer (≤20) hours attending live sessions (2.2% vs 0%) and among indoor social event participants versus nonparticipants (0.8% vs 1.9%). Attendees largely felt comfortable attending additional in-person meetings after experiencing ASCO (87.5%) or ASTRO (91.9%) and felt mask compliance was good or excellent at ASCO (100%) and ASTRO (94.6%) meetings., Conclusions: In-person meetings do not seem to be contributing to high rates of new COVID-19 infections in the setting of vaccine and social distancing mandates, supporting paths forward for at least partially in-person conferences as COVID-19 becomes endemic., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To provide a comprehensive analysis of radiation oncology (RO) fellowship growth from 2010 to 2020., Methods and Materials: A collated database of RO fellowship programs and matriculants was created using (1) RO residency program (n = 92) and graduate (n = 2082) web searches, (2) prospective American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Career Center postings database, (3) Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Fellowship Directory, (4) RO fellowship survey data, (5) ASTRO Membership Directory, and (6) direct e-mail contact with fellowship program directors. Linear regression was used to assess the statistical significance of RO fellowship program, position, and matriculant growth over time., Results: From 2010 to 2020, the number of RO fellowship programs and annual positions significantly increased from 20 to 37 (1.60 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-1.89; P < .001) and 20 to 39 (1.81 increase per year; 95% confidence interval, 1.52-2.10; P < .001), respectively. The most commonly offered fellowship disciplines were proton therapy (n = 10), brachytherapy (n = 7), stereotactic radiosurgery/stereotactic body radiation therapy (n = 6), general RO (n = 5), and customizable to trainees' interests (n = 3). Only 10 (27%) fellowships had a formal curriculum. All fellowships were unaccredited. Four (10.8%) programs were offered at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency training program, all established within the past 2 years. In addition, 54.8% (171 of 312) of available fellowship positions were filled between 2010 to 2020. Of these, 94 (55.0%) were graduates of US RO residency programs. The mean number of total fellows and US-residency trained fellows per year was 15 (range, 5-23) and 8 (range, 2-20), respectively. There was no significant increase in the number of annual matriculated fellows over time (P = .077). Among US-residency trained fellows, 27 (28.7%), 37 (39.4%), and 29 (30.9%) were from small (≤6), medium (7-12), and large (>12) residency programs, respectively. Twenty-eight (29.8%), 13 (13.8%), 25 (26.6%), and 27 (28.7%) trained in the Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, respectively., Conclusions: There has been significant growth in unaccredited RO fellowship programs and annual positions during the past decade, although the number of matriculants has remained stable. We report for the first time the recent establishment of fellowships at institutions without an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited RO residency program. The impact of fellowship programs on the training of RO residents should be studied., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)