Search

Purpose: Long-term randomized data assessing the effect of ablative therapies in patients with oligometastases are lacking. The Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy for the Comprehensive Treatment of Oligometastases (SABR-COMET) randomized phase 2 trial was originally designed with 5 years of follow-up, but the trial was amended in 2016 to extend follow-up to 10 years. Herein we report oncologic outcomes beyond 5 years.Methods and Materials: Patients were eligible if they had a controlled primary tumor and 1 to 5 metastases, with all metastases amenable to SABR. Patients were randomized in a 1:2 ratio between palliative standard-of-care treatment (control arm) versus SABR to all metastases plus standard of care (SABR arm). The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS) and secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy: General [FACT-G]), and time to new metastases.Results: Ninety-nine patients were randomized between 2012 and 2016 (n = 33 in arm 1 vs n = 66 in arm 2). Primary tumor sites included lung (n = 18), breast (n = 18), colon (n = 18), prostate (n = 16), and other (n = 29). Eight-year OS was 27.2% in the SABR arm versus 13.6% in the control arm (hazard ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.30-0.84; P = .008). Eight-year PFS estimates were 21.3% versus 0.0%, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.45; 95% confidence interval, 0.28-0.72; P < .001). Rates of grade ≥ 2 acute or late toxic effects were 30.3% versus 9.1% (P = .019), with no new grade 3 to 5 toxic effects. FACT-G quality of life scores declined over time in both arms, but there were no differences in quality of life scores between arms. The use of systemic therapy overall was similar between arms, but patients in the SABR arm were less likely to require cytotoxic chemotherapy (33.3% vs 54.6%, respectively, P = .043).Conclusions: SABR achieved durable improvements in OS and PFS, with no new major toxicity signals with extended follow-up. A minority of patients randomized to the SABR arm (21.3%) achieved > 5 years of survival without recurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although several different contouring instructional programs are available to radiation oncologists and trainees, very little is known about which methods and resources benefit learners most, and whether some learners may need alternate forms of instruction. This study aimed to determine the factors that were predictors of learners' success in anatomy, radiology, and contouring education. Participants in the online and face-to-face Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp completed pre- and postintervention evaluations that assessed anatomy/radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and spatial ability. Baseline factors were assessed as predictors of outcomes across multiple educational domains. One hundred and eighty (face-to-face: n = 40; online: n = 140) participants enrolled in the ARC Bootcamp, and 57 (face-to-face: n = 30; online: n = 27) participants completed both evaluations. Of the participants enrolled, 37% were female, and most were radiation oncology residents (62%). In the anatomy/radiology knowledge testing, all quartiles (based on baseline performance) improved numerically; however, the largest improvements occurred in learners with the lowest baseline scores (P <.001). At the end of the Bootcamp, learners with lower-performing scores did not reach the level of learners with the highest baseline scores (Bonferroni-corrected P <.001). Regarding the contouring assessment, improvements were only evident for the participants with lower-performing baseline scores (P <.05). Spatial anatomy skills, as measured by the spatial anatomy task, were correlated to contouring ability. Overall, the greatest improvements were seen for learners in postgraduate year 1 to 3, those with no previous rotation experience in a given discipline, and those who attended from other programs (ie, medical physics residents and medical students). The ARC Bootcamp improved all levels of performers' anatomy and radiology knowledge but only lower-performers' contouring ability. The course alone does not help lower-performing learners reach the abilities of higher-performers. The ARC Bootcamp tends to be most beneficial for participants with less radiation oncology experience. Curriculum modifications can be made to help support ARC Bootcamp participants with lower performing scores. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many decisions can be represented as interrelated discrete and continuous choices, i.e. what and how much to choose from a set of finite alternatives (incidence and quantity of consumption). In the last twenty years, several models of Karush–Kuhn–Tucker demand systems have been developed and used to study these kinds of decisions. While strongly grounded in economic theory, most of these models have two limitations: they require specifying a budget, and usually omit any complementarity effects. In this paper, we propose two extensions to the Multiple Discrete Continuous (MDC) modelling framework: (i) an MDC model including explicit complementarity and substitution effects, and (ii) an MDC model with complementarity, substitution that requires no budget definition. Model (ii) relies on the hypothesis that total expenditure on the alternatives under consideration is small compared to the overall budget. This allows using a linear utility function for the numeraire good, leading to a likelihood function without the budget or numeraire good in it. The lack of a budget is specially useful when forecasting, as it avoids cascading errors due to an inaccurate budget specifications. The inclusion of complementarity and substitution effects enriches the interpretability of the models, while the resulting functional form avoids theoretical issues present in previous formulations. Alongside the derivation of the models, we discuss their main properties and propose an efficient forecasting algorithm for (ii). We also report four applications to datasets about time use, household expenditure, supermarket scanner data, and trip generation. Free estimation code for both models is made available online. • Two extensions of the multiple discrete continuous (MDC) framework are presented. • Extension 1 incorporates complementarity and substitution in a tractable formulation. • Extension 2 incorporates complementarity, substitution and an unobserved budget. • Extension 2 relies on the unobserved budget being large. • Free computational implementations are provided online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For patients with oligometastatic cancer, radiotherapy presents a promising avenue for achieving meaningful symptom relief and durable disease control. Data from recently published and ongoing randomized studies are helping to define the appropriate contexts for effective intervention with stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) in the oligometastatic setting. Importantly, older adults represent a significant portion of patients with oligometastatic disease, yet often comprise a minority of patients in clinical trials. Moreover, older adults of the same chronologic age may have variable degrees of fitness and frailty. In this review, we highlight the specific challenges and considerations for the use of radiotherapy for older adults with oligometastatic disease—noting the importance of geriatric assessments in clinical decision-making about the appropriateness of SABR and other metastasis-directed therapies in this population. We then review data from existing trials, including a subset analysis of adverse events and survival estimates among older adults enrolled in the landmark SABR-COMET trial. Finally, we discuss future directions for research, including the need for focused clinical trials in older adult cohorts. Ultimately, a multidisciplinary approach is critical when carefully balancing the potential risks and benefits of this emerging treatment paradigm in the older adult population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Medical Imaging & Radiation Sciences is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This phase 1 study aimed to assess the safety and feasibility of SABR therapy delivery to all sites of polymetastatic disease (>10 metastases). A 3 + 3 study design was used with 5 dose levels from 6 Gy (6 Gy × 1) to 30 Gy (6 Gy weekly × 5). Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was defined as any grade 4 or 5 toxicity or more than 3 grade 3 toxicities within 6 weeks of treatment. The primary endpoint was the maximal tolerated dose, defined as the dose level where ≥2/6 of patients experienced DLT. Secondary endpoints included quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General and European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level) at 6 weeks posttreatment, progression-free survival, and overall survival. Thirteen patients were accrued: 12 Gy (n = 3), 18 Gy (n = 3), 24 Gy (n = 4), and 30 Gy (n = 3), and 207 lesions were treated. Nine patients (69%) had acute toxicity: grade 1 (n = 6, 46%), grade 2 (n = 2, 15%; n = 1 pneumonitis and n = 1 fatigue), and grade 3 (n = 1, 7.7% neutropenia). There were no grade 4 or 5 toxicities. Mean ± SD quality of life (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – General and European Quality of Life 5 Dimension 5 Level health state) was 80.4 ± 21.9 and 77.4 ± 20.9 at baseline versus 76.4 ± 21.8 and 68.0 ± 24.2 at 6-week follow-up, respectively (p =.009 and p =.055, respectively). With a median follow-up of 8.7 months posttreatment (IQR, 2.4-24 months), 8 of 13 patients had disease progression (62%). The median and 12-month progression-free survival were 3.6 months and 11.3%, respectively. The median and 12-month overall survival were 13.8 months and 62%, respectively. In this phase 1 trial, SABR therapy for polymetastatic disease was technically feasible with acceptable acute toxicity at dose levels up to 30 Gy (6 Gy weekly × 5). DLT was not observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of radiation therapy in metastatic cancer is rapidly evolving with increased understanding of the oligometastatic state and improved technologies to deliver higher doses of radiation with greater precision and avoidance of normal tissues than before. Recent data have demonstrated that the use of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) in oligometastatic disease confers a survival benefit. Yet, the current enthusiasm must be balanced with caution. Here we summarize the evidence in favor of SABR for oligometastatic patients as well as the concerns regarding rapid adoption into clinical practice and outline broad principles to guide clinical trials evaluating the role of SABR in oligometastatic disease. As oncologists, we must exercise due diligence and gather the appropriate evidence necessary to 1) understand the oligometastatic disease state and 2) optimize benefit in those patients before broadly offering SABR to all. Any alternative path forward will do our field and our patients a great injustice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organ at risk (OAR) dose constraints are a critical aspect of SABR treatment planning. There is limited evidence supporting preferred dose constraints for many OARs. We sought to evaluate OAR dose constraints used in ongoing clinical trials of SABR for oligometastatic disease. Clinicaltrials.gov was searched from inception to February 2020 to capture actively accruing clinical trials using SABR in oligometastatic disease. Dose constraints were obtained by contacting principal investigators and abstracted by 2 authors. Variability of constraints was assessed by comparing the width of the interquartile range and difference between the maximum and minimum dose to a volume. Fifty-three of 85 eligible clinical trials contributed OAR constraints used in analysis. Dose constraints for 1 to 8 fractions of SABR were collected for 33 OARs. Variability was found in the absolute allowable OAR doses, use of planning OAR volumes, and whether constraints were optional versus mandatory. For many OARs, modal dose constraints often matched a pre-existing publication, but no single pre-existing publication matched the modes of all OAR dose constraints. Organs displaying the most variability were the rectum, penile bulb, and chest wall and ribs. The esophagus, stomach, duodenum, and small bowel also indicated high variability for at least 1 constraint. OARs previously evaluated by HyTEC appeared to have less variability among study protocols. We found substantial variability in OAR dose constraints used in current clinical trials evaluating SABR in oligometastatic disease. We are unable to comment on toxicity rates or acceptability of dose constraints used. Future research and recommendations for standardized OAR dose constraints, as well as consistency in implementing planning OAR volume margins, should be priorities for the field of radiation oncology. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• A situational awareness Bayesian network is developed based on expert knowledge. • It enables exploring biophysical pathways starting with the expert knowledge. • It allows physicians to conduct their familiar "what if" counterfactual inference. • It outperforms other credible models for the joint prediction of treatment outcomes. • It has the potential to be a key component of personalized adaptive radiotherapy. A situational awareness Bayesian network (SA-BN) approach is developed to improve physicians' trust in the prediction of radiation outcomes and evaluate its performance for personalized adaptive radiotherapy (pART). 118 non-small-cell lung cancer patients with their biophysical features were employed for discovery (n = 68) and validation (n = 50) of radiation outcomes prediction modeling. Patients' important characteristics identified by radiation experts to predict individual's tumor local control (LC) or radiation pneumonitis with grade ≥ 2 (RP2) were incorporated as expert knowledge (EK). Besides generating an EK-based naïve BN (EK-NBN), an SA-BN was developed by incorporating the EK features into pure data-driven BN (PD-BN) methods to improve the credibility of LC or / and RP2 prediction. After using area under the free-response receiver operating characteristics curve (AU-FROC) to assess the joint prediction of these outcomes, their prediction performances were compared with a regression approach based on the expert yielded estimates (EYE) penalty and its variants. In addition to improving the credibility of radiation outcomes prediction, the SA-BN approach outperformed the EYE penalty and its variants in terms of the joint prediction of LC and RP2. The value of AU-FROC improves from 0.70 (95% CI: 0.54–0.76) using EK-NBN, to 0.75 (0.65–0.82) using a variant of EYE penalty, to 0.83 (0.75–0.93) using PD-BN and 0.83 (0.77–0.90) using SA-BN; with similar trends in the validation cohort. The SA-BN approach can provide an accurate and credible human–machine interface to gain physicians' trust in clinical decision-making, which has the potential to be an important component of pART. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. 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. 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. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]