Search

The MD Anderson Dysphagia Inventory (MDADI), a measure of swallowing-related quality of life, has become the preferred patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in contemporary clinical trials evaluating the experience of human papillomavirus-associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPVOPSCC) survivors. With many potentially practice-changing studies using the MDADI composite score as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, or as a key secondary endpoint, it is important to understand its psychometric properties as judged by contemporary PROM standards, with a particular focus on its application to contemporary HPVOPSCC populations. In this critical review, we evaluate contemporary HPVOPSCC studies reporting MDADI outcomes, followed by a detailed evaluation of the psychometric properties of the MDADI. Although the focus of this review was the MDADI, the issues discussed are not unique to the MDADI and have broader applicability to the evaluation and assessment of other PROMs currently in use. First, it may be possible to improve administration of the instrument, as related to missing items, scoring, and the number of items required. Second, although in many instances, the MDADI has been intended as a direct or surrogate measure of swallowing physiology, the MDADI composite score captures a broader health-related quality of life construct affected by both swallowing and eating, the latter of which may be affected by a range of nonswallowing treatment-related toxicities. Finally, a clinically meaningful change of 10 in the MDADI composite score, widely accepted and applied to the clinical trial setting, represents an undoubtably clinically relevant difference in unselected head and neck cancer survivors. However, the smallest difference that might be clinically important to a highly functional HPVOPSCC cohort remains uncertain. Understanding the purpose and properties of the MDADI instrument and furthering the sophistication with which we apply it in this population would improve its interpretation in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma is recommended based on a number of wide-ranging clinicopathologic features, which encompass a broad array of patients. The 40-gene expression profile (GEP) test classifies cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma tumors into low (class 1), higher (class 2A), or highest (class 2B) risk of nodal and/or distant metastasis. This study's hypotheses are as follows: (1) local recurrence is associated with metastatic disease progression and (2) 40-GEP, by identifying high risk for metastasis, could predict a metastasis-specific benefit from ART., Methods and Materials: Samples were obtained from 920 patients (ART-untreated: 496 class 1, 335 class 2A, and 33 class 2B; ART-treated: 11 class 1, 35 class 2A, and 10 class 2B) who were matched on clinical risk factors and stratified by ART status to create 49 matched patient strata. To control for the variety of characteristics and treatment selection bias, randomly sampled pairs of matched ART and non-ART patients comprising 10,000 resampled cohorts were each analyzed for 5-year metastasis-free survival and predicted time to metastatic event., Results: Of 96 patients experiencing local recurrence, 56.3% experienced metastasis; of those experiencing both, 88.9% experienced local recurrence before (75.9%) or concurrently (13.0%) with metastasis. After matching for clinicopathologic risk, median 5-year disease progression rates for resampled cohorts demonstrated approximately 50% improvement for class 2B ART-treated compared with ART-untreated cohorts. ART-treated class 2B cohorts had a 5-fold delay in predicted time to metastatic event and deceleration of disease progression compared with ART-untreated cohorts (Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, P < .01); this was not observed for patients with class 1 or 2A cSCC (P > .05 for each). No risk factor or staging system combined with ART status identified groups that would benefit from ART as well as 40-GEP., Conclusions: Forty-GEP identifies patients at the highest risk of nodal/distant metastasis who may derive the greatest benefit from ART, as well as patients who may have clinical indications for ART but are at low risk of metastasis. Compared with current guidelines, 40-GEP could provide greater specificity concerning the benefit of ART in individual patients., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) presents substantial challenges in clinical management. Although postoperative re-irradiation (re-RT) has been acknowledged as a potential treatment option, standardized guidelines and consensus regarding the use of re-RT in this context are lacking. This article provides a comprehensive review and summary of international recommendations on postoperative management for potentially resectable locally recurrent NPC, with a special focus on postoperative re-RT. A thorough search was conducted to identify relevant studies on postoperative re-RT for locally recurrent NPC. Controversial issues, including resectability criteria, margin assessment, indications for postoperative re-RT, and the optimal dose and method of re-RT, were addressed through a Delphi consensus process. The consensus recommendations emphasize the need for a clearer and broader definition of resectability, highlighting the importance of achieving clear surgical margins, preferably through an en bloc approach with frozen section margin assessment. Furthermore, these guidelines suggest considering re-RT for patients with positive or close margins. Optimal postoperative re-RT doses typically range around 60 Gy, and hyperfractionation has shown promise in reducing toxicity. These guidelines aim to assist clinicians in making evidence-based decisions and improving patient outcomes in the management of potentially resectable locally recurrent NPC. By addressing key areas of controversy and providing recommendations on resectability, margin assessment, and re-RT parameters, these guidelines serve as a valuable resource for clinical experts involved in the treatment of locally recurrent NPC., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Combinatorial therapies consisting of radiation therapy (RT) with systemic therapies, particularly chemotherapy and targeted therapies, have moved the needle to augment disease control across nearly all disease sites for locally advanced disease. Evaluating these important combinations to incorporate more potent therapies with RT will aid our understanding of toxicity and efficacy for patients. This article discusses multiple disease sites and includes a compilation of contributions from expert Red Journal editors from each disease site. Leveraging improved systemic control with novel agents, we must continue efforts to study novel treatment combinations with RT., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Retreatment of recurrent or second primary head and neck cancers occurring in a previously irradiated field is complex. Few guidelines exist to support practice. We performed an updated literature search of peer-reviewed journals in a systematic fashion. Search terms, key questions, and associated clinical case variants were formed by panel consensus. The literature search informed the committee during a blinded vote on the appropriateness of treatment options via the modified Delphi method. The final number of citations retained for review was 274. These informed 5 key questions, which focused on patient selection, adjuvant reirradiation, definitive reirradiation, stereotactic body radiation, and reirradiation to treat nonsquamous cancer. Results of the consensus voting are presented along with discussion of the most current evidence. This provides updated evidence-based recommendations and guidelines for the retreatment of recurrent or second primary cancer of the head and neck., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To evaluate reviewers' timeliness and review quality for the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics (IJROBP) by sex and seniority., Methods and Materials: The IJROBP editorial office provided data on 3962 individuals invited to review manuscripts from 2011 through 2014. We identified 1657 reviewers who had been invited to provide a review on at least 3 occasions during the study period and compared review timeliness and scoring between male and female reviewers. We confirmed the reviewers' sex after having unblinded their names based on our personal acquaintance with them and via an Internet search on their department websites. We then did a subset analysis of 124 US-based reviewers who had returned a "major revision" decision. We used the Review Quality Instrument (RQI) to rate their reviews. We used odds ratios and t tests to look for differences in mean RQI scores and factors that might be associated with quality-in particular, Hirsch indices (h indices) and year of first certification., Results: Of the 1657 reviewers of interest, 1245 (75.1%) were men and 412 (24.9%) were women. We found no statistically significant differences between men and women in the time to respond to invitations. There were no statistically significant differences in timeliness or review reminders based on sex. Our subset analysis showed no difference in quality (RQI scores) based on the reviewers' sex, h index, or year of first certification., Conclusions: Women and men render reviews of equal quality regardless of seniority and h index, yet women have been invited less frequently to review. This is likely because of the underrepresentation of women in radiation oncology. A more balanced academic population is needed to address this continuing disparity of women's representation in academic publishing., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Reirradiation for locally recurrent nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) is challenging because prior radiation dose delivered in the first course is often close to the tolerance limit of surrounding normal structures. A delicate balance between achieving local salvage and minimizing treatment toxicities is needed. However, high-level evidence is lacking because available reports are mostly retrospective studies on small series of patients. Pragmatic consensus guidelines, based on an extensive literature search and the pooling of opinions by leading specialists, will provide a useful reference to assist decision-making for these difficult decisions., Methods and Materials: A thorough review of available literature on recurrent NPC was conducted. A set of questions and preliminary draft guideline was circulated to a panel of international specialists with extensive experience in this field for voting on controversial areas and comments. A refined second proposal, based on a summary of the initial voting and different opinions expressed, was recirculated to the whole panel for review and reconsideration. The current guideline was based on majority voting after repeated iteration for final agreement., Results: The initial round of questions showed variations in clinical practice even among the specialists, reflecting the lack of high-quality supporting data and the difficulties in formulating clinical decisions. Through exchange of comments and iterative revisions, recommendations with high-to-moderate agreement were formulated on general treatment strategies and details of reirradiation (including patient selection, targets contouring, dose prescription, and constraints)., Conclusion: This paper provides useful reference on radical salvage treatment strategies for recurrent NPC and optimization of reirradiation through review of published evidence and consensus building. However, the final decision by the attending clinician must include full consideration of an individual patient's condition, understanding of the delicate balance between risk and benefits, and acceptance of risk of complications., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The Open Payments transparency program publishes data on industry-physician payments, in part to discourage relationships considered inappropriate including gifts, meals, and speaker's bureau fees. We evaluated trends in physician-level payments to test whether implementation of Open Payments resulted in fewer industry-radiation oncologist (RO) interactions or shifted interactions toward those considered more appropriate compared with medical oncologists (MOs) and other hospital-based physicians (HBPs)., Methods and Materials: We performed a retrospective, population-based cohort study of practicing US ROs versus MOs and HBPs in 2014 matched to general (nonresearch) payments between 2014 and 2018. Trends in payments were analyzed and reported by nature of payment. Values of payments to ROs from the top 10 companies were identified., Results: From 2014 to 2018, 3379 (90.3%) ROs accepted 106,930 payments totaling $40.8 million. The per-physician number and value of payments was lower in radiation oncology than in medical oncology and higher than HBPs. The proportion of ROs accepting payments increased from 61.8% in 2014 to 64.2% in 2018; the proportion of MOs accepting payments decreased from 78.7% to 77.7%; and the proportion of HBPs decreased from 40.8% to 37.5%, respectively. The annual per-physician value and number of payments accepted by ROs and MOs increased. Payments in entertainment, meals, travel and lodging, and gifts increased among ROs and remained stable or decreased among MOs and HBPs. Consulting payments increased across all groups. Top RO payors produced novel cancer therapeutics, hydrogel spacers, radiation treatment machines, and opioids., Conclusions: Industry payments to ROs have become more common since OP's inception, while becoming less common for MOs and HBPs. Payments to ROs and MOs have become more frequent and of modestly increasing value compared with other HBPs, for whom the value is decreasing. No large changes in the nature of relationships were seen in ROs. Increased engagement with financial conflicts of interest is needed in radiation oncology., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study., Methods and Materials: Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios., Results: From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications., Conclusions: A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immunotherapy has emerged as a standard of care in the treatment of a wide variety of malignancies, and it may be used in combination with other treatments including surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy. However, a patient's imaging response to immunotherapy can be confounded by a variety of factors, including the appearance of pseudoprogression or the development of immune-related adverse events. In these situations, the immune response itself can mimic disease progression, potentially causing confusion in assessment and determination of further treatment. To address these challenges, a variety of approaches have been proposed to improve response assessment. First, revised definitions of response criteria, accounting for the appearance of pseudoprogression, can improve specificity of assessment. Second, advanced image processing including radiomics and machine learning analysis can be used to further analyze standard of care imaging data. In addition, new molecular imaging techniques can be used to directly interrogate immune cell activity or study aspects of the tumor microenvironment. These approaches have promise for improving the understanding of the response to immunotherapy and improving patient care., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Radiation therapy (RT) consensus contouring guidelines in the postoperative setting for complex cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck have been developed by expert clinicians in the field of head and neck and dermato-oncology and members of the Head and Neck Cancer International Group to assist radiation oncologists involved in the management of this disease. These guidelines present a set of principles used to define postoperative RT volumes and corresponding minimum doses after resection of all macroscopic tumor with or without microscopic residual disease. It is anticipated they will promote the harmonization of postoperative RT globally and contribute to a reduction in treatment variation among clinicians, allowing for RT quality and outcomes assessment across institutions., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC., Results: In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided., Conclusion: This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff., Methods and Materials: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases., Results: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care., Conclusions: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The treatment of nasopharyngeal carcinoma requires high radiation doses. The balance of the risks of local recurrence owing to inadequate tumor coverage versus the potential damage to the adjacent organs at risk (OARs) is of critical importance. With advancements in technology, high target conformality is possible. Nonetheless, to achieve the best possible dose distribution, optimal setting of dose targets and dose prioritization for tumor volumes and various OARs is fundamental. Radiation doses should always be guided by the As Low As Reasonably Practicable principle. There are marked variations in practice. This study aimed to develop a guideline to serve as a global practical reference., Methods and Materials: A literature search on dose tolerances and normal-tissue complications after treatment for nasopharyngeal carcinoma was conducted. In addition, published guidelines and protocols on dose prioritization and constraints were reviewed. A text document and preliminary set of variants was circulated to a panel of international experts with publications or extensive experience in the field. An anonymized voting process was conducted to rank the proposed variants. A summary of the initial voting and different opinions expressed by members were then recirculated to the whole panel for review and reconsideration. Based on the comments of the panel, a refined second proposal was recirculated to the same panel. The current guideline was based on majority voting after repeated iteration for final agreement., Results: Variation in opinion among international experts was repeatedly iterated to develop a guideline describing appropriate dose prioritization and constraints. The percentage of final agreement on the recommended parameters and alternative views is shown. The rationale for the recommendations and the limitations of current evidence are discussed., Conclusions: Through this comprehensive review of available evidence and interactive exchange of vast experience by international experts, a guideline was developed to provide a practical reference for setting dose prioritization and acceptance criteria for tumor volumes and OARs. The final decision on the treatment prescription should be based on the individual clinical situation and the patient's acceptance of optimal balance of risk., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To present long-term results of RTOG 0915/NCCTG N0927, a randomized lung stereotactic body radiation therapy trial of 34 Gy in 1 fraction versus 48 Gy in 4 fractions., Methods and Materials: This was a phase 2 multicenter study of patients with medically inoperable non-small cell lung cancer with biopsy-proven peripheral T1 or T2 N0M0 tumors, with 1-year toxicity rates as the primary endpoint and selected failure and survival outcomes as secondary endpoints. The study opened in September 2009 and closed in March 2011. Final data were analyzed through May 17, 2018., Results: Eighty-four of 94 patients accrued were eligible for analysis: 39 in arm 1 and 45 in arm 2. Median follow-up time was 4.0 years for all patients and 6.0 years for those alive at analysis. Rates of grade 3 and higher toxicity were 2.6% in arm 1 and 11.1% in arm 2. Median survival times (in years) for 34 Gy and 48 Gy were 4.1 versus 4.6, respectively. Five-year outcomes (95% confidence interval) for 34 Gy and 48 Gy were a primary tumor failure rate of 10.6% (3.3%-23.1%) versus 6.8% (1.7%-16.9%); overall survival of 29.6% (16.2%-44.4%) versus 41.1% (26.6%-55.1%); and progression-free survival of 19.1% (8.5%-33.0%) versus 33.3% (20.2%-47.0%). Distant failure as the sole failure or a component of first failure occurred in 6 patients (37.5%) in the 34 Gy arm and in 7 (41.2%) in the 48 Gy arm., Conclusions: No excess in late-appearing toxicity was seen in either arm. Primary tumor control rates at 5 years were similar by arm. A median survival time of 4 years for each arm suggests similar efficacy, pending any larger studies appropriately powered to detect survival differences., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Perineural invasion (PNI), the neoplastic invasion of nerves, is a common pathologic finding in head and neck cancer that is associated with poor clinical outcomes. PNI is a histologic finding of tumor cell infiltration and is distinct from perineural tumor spread (PNTS), which is macroscopic tumor involvement along a nerve extending from the primary tumor that is by definition more advanced, being radiologically or clinically apparent. Despite widespread acknowledgment of the prognostic significance of PNI and PNTS, the mechanisms underlying its pathogenesis remain largely unknown, and specific therapies targeting nerve invasion are lacking. The use of radiation therapy for PNI and PNTS can improve local control and reduce devastating failures at the skull base. However, the optimal volumes to be delineated with respect to targeting cranial nerve pathways are not well defined, and radiation can carry risks of major toxicity secondary to the location of adjacent critical structures. Here we examine the pathogenesis of these phenomena, analyze the role of radiation in PNI and PNTS, and propose guidelines for radiation treatment design based on the best available evidence and the authors' collective experience to advance understanding and therapy of this ominous cancer phenotype., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The adoption of enterprise digital imaging, along with the development of quantitative imaging methods and the re-emergence of statistical learning, has opened the opportunity for more personalized cancer treatments through transformative data science research. In the last 5 years, accumulating evidence has indicated that noninvasive advanced imaging analytics (i.e., radiomics) can reveal key components of tumor phenotype for multiple lesions at multiple time points over the course of treatment. Many groups using homegrown software have extracted engineered and deep quantitative features on 3-dimensional medical images for better spatial and longitudinal understanding of tumor biology and for the prediction of diverse outcomes. These developments could augment patient stratification and prognostication, buttressing emerging targeted therapeutic approaches. Unfortunately, the rapid growth in popularity of this immature scientific discipline has resulted in many early publications that miss key information or use underpowered patient data sets, without production of generalizable results. Quantitative imaging research is complex, and key principles should be followed to realize its full potential. The fields of quantitative imaging and radiomics in particular require a renewed focus on optimal study design and reporting practices, standardization, interpretability, data sharing, and clinical trials. Standardization of image acquisition, feature calculation, and statistical analysis (i.e., machine learning) are required for the field to move forward. A new data-sharing paradigm enacted among open and diverse participants (medical institutions, vendors and associations) should be embraced for faster development and comprehensive clinical validation of imaging biomarkers. In this review and critique of the field, we propose working principles and fundamental changes to the current scientific approach, with the goal of high-impact research and development of actionable prediction models that will yield more meaningful applications of precision cancer medicine., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

A substantial barrier to the single- and multi-institutional aggregation of data to supporting clinical trials, practice quality improvement efforts, and development of big data analytics resource systems is the lack of standardized nomenclatures for expressing dosimetric data. To address this issue, the American Association of Physicists in Medicine (AAPM) Task Group 263 was charged with providing nomenclature guidelines and values in radiation oncology for use in clinical trials, data-pooling initiatives, population-based studies, and routine clinical care by standardizing: (1) structure names across image processing and treatment planning system platforms; (2) nomenclature for dosimetric data (eg, dose-volume histogram [DVH]-based metrics); (3) templates for clinical trial groups and users of an initial subset of software platforms to facilitate adoption of the standards; (4) formalism for nomenclature schema, which can accommodate the addition of other structures defined in the future. A multisociety, multidisciplinary, multinational group of 57 members representing stake holders ranging from large academic centers to community clinics and vendors was assembled, including physicists, physicians, dosimetrists, and vendors. The stakeholder groups represented in the membership included the AAPM, American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO), NRG Oncology, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), Radiation Therapy Oncology Group (RTOG), Children's Oncology Group (COG), Integrating Healthcare Enterprise in Radiation Oncology (IHE-RO), and Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine working group (DICOM WG); A nomenclature system for target and organ at risk volumes and DVH nomenclature was developed and piloted to demonstrate viability across a range of clinics and within the framework of clinical trials. The final report was approved by AAPM in October 2017. The approval process included review by 8 AAPM committees, with additional review by ASTRO, European Society for Radiation Oncology (ESTRO), and American Association of Medical Dosimetrists (AAMD). This Executive Summary of the report highlights the key recommendations for clinical practice, research, and trials., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)