Search

Objectives: Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient's diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient's autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient's individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals., Methods: This practice parameter was produced according to the process described under the heading "The Process for Developing ACR Practice Parameters and Technical Standards" on the ACR website ( https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Practice-Parameters-and-Technical-Standards ) by the Committee on Practice Parameters-Radiation Oncology of the ACR Commission on Radiation Oncology in collaboration with the ARS. Committee members were charged with reviewing the prior version of the informed consent practice parameter published in 2017 and recommending additions, modifications, or deletions. The committee met through remote access and subsequently through an online exchange to facilitate the development of the revised document. Focus was given on identifying new considerations and challenges with informed consent given the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology in part driven by the COVID-19 pandemic and other external factors., Results: A review of the practice parameter published in 2017 confirmed the ongoing relevance of recommendations made at that time. In addition, the evolution of the practice of radiation oncology since the publication of the prior document resulted in the need for new topics to be addressed. These topics include remote consent either through telehealth or telephone and with the patient or their health care proxy., Conclusions: Informed consent is an essential process in the care of radiation oncology patients. This practice parameter serves as an educational tool designed to assist practitioners in optimizing this process for the benefit of all involved parties., Competing Interests: M.D.H.: Advisor to Boston Scientific and Neotherma. C.R.G.: American Society Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and Breast Cancer Research Foundation (BCRF) Career Development Award to End Breast Cancer NIH/NCI K12 Clinical Scientist Institutional Career Development Program Award. S.S.L.: Elekta AB—Member, Gamma Knife ICON Expert Group (Ended January 1, 2023). W.S.Jr: Carl Zeiss, honoraria, and travel expenses for DSMB service. ACR Radiation Oncology Commission. N.R.S.: Employment relationships with South Florida Proton Therapy Institute and Rakuten-Medical, Inc. (Medical Director). The remaining authors declare no conflicts of interest. Consent is a communication process between the patient and a health care provider, in which both parties have the opportunity to ask questions and exchange information relevant to the patient’s diagnosis and treatment. The process of informed consent is designed to protect a patient’s autonomy in their medical decision-making in the context of an asymmetric relationship with the health care system. A proper consent process assures a patient’s individual autonomy, reduces the opportunity for abusive conduct or conflicts of interest, and raises trust levels among participants. This document was developed as an educational tool to facilitate these goals., (Copyright © 2023 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: There is no study published regarding the benefit of radiation therapy (RT) in combination with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) for the treatment of metastatic renal cell cancer (mRCC). This report is part of an exploratory study aiming to determine the immunomodulatory activity of RT alone or in combination with pembrolizumab in solid tumors., Materials and Methods: mRCC patients were treated with a combination of RT (8 Gy×1 or 4 Gy×5) followed by pembrolizumab with or without lead-in dose of pembrolizumab. Treatment response was measured based on the modified Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors criteria. Adverse events were monitored and graded. Pre-RT and post-RT tumor biopsies were obtained to evaluate programmed death-ligand 1 expression. Immune markers from peripheral blood before, during, and after treatment were analyzed using flow cytometry., Results: Twelve mRCC patients who progressed on prior antiangiogenic therapy were enrolled. Half had 2 lines of prior therapy. Two patients (16.7%) had partial responses and were on study for 12.4 and 14.5 months. Three patients had stable disease for a period ranging from 4.2 to 10.4 months, whereas 7 patients had progressive disease. Median progression-free survival was 8.6 months and median overall survival was 32.3 months. Three patients had grade ≥3 events (hyperglycemia, thrombocytopenia, transaminitis). Biopsied tissue programmed death-ligand 1 expression and tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes were numerically higher in responders comparing to nonresponders (Modified Proportion Score 45% vs. 30.45%; tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes odds ratio 4.92)., Conclusion: Combining RT with pembrolizumab in pretreated mRCC is well-tolerated and appears to have comparable efficacy with single-agent nivolumab.

Purpose/objectives: Radium-223 is a first-in-class radiopharmaceutical recently approved for the treatment of castration-resistant prostate cancer in patients with symptomatic bone metastases. Initial studies investigating Radium-223 primarily used nonsteroidal first-generation antiandrogens. Since that time, newer antiandrogen therapies have demonstrated improved survival in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. It has been suggested that the rational combination of these newly approved agents with Radium-223 may lead to improved response rates and clinical outcomes. Currently, there is lack of information regarding the safety of concurrent administration of these agents with radiopharmaceuticals. Here, we report on hematologic toxicity findings from our institution in patients receiving concurrent Radium-223 and next-generation antiandrogen therapies with either enzalutamide or abiraterone., Materials/methods: In a retrospective study, we analyzed patients who received Radium-223 as part of an early-access trial, and following FDA approval in May 2013, patients receiving Radium-223 as part of standard care. Radium-223 was given at standard dosing of 50 kBq/kg each month for 6 total cycles. Complete blood counts were performed before treatment monthly and following each injection. Blood counts from patients receiving Radium alone and concurrently with next-generation antiandrogens were compared. To date, 25 total patients were analyzed, with a median of 5 monthly doses received per patient. Fourteen patients received concurrent therapy during monthly Radium-223 with either enzalutamide (n=8) or abiraterone (n=6)., Results: Six patients expired due to disease progression. Two patients discontinued treatment due to grade 3 myelosuppression. For patients receiving either Radium alone and with concurrent next-generation antiandrogen therapy, there did not appear to be any statistically significant differences between initial and nadir blood counts. Mean change from initial neutrophil count to nadir was 1.9×10/L in patients receiving Radium alone, versus 2.3×10/L in patients receiving concurrent therapy (P=0.77). Mean change from initial hemoglobin value to nadir was 1.5 g/L in patients receiving Radium alone, versus 1.8 g/L in patients receiving concurrent therapy (P=0.31). Mean change from initial platelet count to nadir was 52.3×10 cells/L in patients receiving Radium alone versus 70.6×10 cells/L in patients receiving concurrent therapy (P=0.39). Individual blood counts for each measured laboratory are included in the supplemental data. PSA was stable or decreased in 22% of patients receiving Radium alone versus 35% of patients receiving combination treatment (P=0.24)., Conclusions: Concurrent administration of Radium-223 and next-generation antiandrogen therapies appears to be well tolerated with similar toxicities to standard administration of Radium-223 alone. This particular cohort of patients represents a high-risk, heavily pretreated group of patients with advanced metastatic disease and significant marrow burden. Despite these risk factors, hematologic toxicity was modest and was in the range expected for this risk group based on previous trials. To date, this is the first study investigating the toxicity of combination treatment. Further studies investigating the safety and efficacy of combination treatments are warranted.

The realization that hyperthermia was an ideal complementary treatment to radiation and certain chemotherapeutic agents from a biologic perspective led to great enthusiasm for this modality over a quarter of a century ago. Unfortunately, this well-deserved enthusiasm quickly become tempered because of the inability to effectively heat tumors, particularly deep-seated ones with cumbersome first generation technology coupled with still-emerging understandings of thermal biology. Today as before, both challenges and opportunities remain in the application of hyperthermia for cancer patients. The lessons learned from the introduction of hyperthermia, a generation ago, are providing focus for application of this still-promising modality in today's clinic. These areas of challenge and opportunity include: thermal biology; treatment planning, delivery, and monitoring; successful high-quality clinical trials; and integration of thermal therapy with emerging technologies and therapeutic strategies both established and evolving. The progress made in understanding of thermal biology, physics, and bioengineering, coupled with advances in complementary clinical treatment modalities have all contributed to the next generation of clinical thermal therapy.

The diagnostic yield and risks of transbronchial biopsy (TBB) during mechanical ventilation were assessed in 13 patients with progressive pulmonary infiltrates. TBB was of considerable diagnostic value in ten patients and useful in excluding potentially treatable infections in the remaining three patients. Complications included two pneumothoraces, pulmonary hemorrhage in one case, and supraventricular tachycardia in another. No fatalities were attributable to TBB. TBB proved to be a relatively safe procedure, with a high diagnostic yield in these critically ill patients.