Search

Simple Summary: The very poor prognosis and the absence of radical treatment options in cases of unresectable "locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)" focus its management on palliation. An "overall survival (OS)" benefit has been shown with new systemic therapy agents; however, not all patients are good candidates for systemic treatments at diagnosis, and LAPC is often associated with a high symptom burden that greatly impacts patients' quality of life. Studying dose optimization of radiation as an option for local progression cessation is therefore necessary. Research in this setting as opposed to other treatment sites is under-represented in the literature and the guidelines are based on very scarce data. We aim to present the outcomes of "stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT)" (ablative radiotherapy) vs. non-ablative radiotherapy through our patient population and the available data in the literature. We studied the dose–local control (LC) relationship in ablative vs. non-ablative radiotherapy in a non-radical treatment setting of "locally advanced pancreatic cancer (LAPC)" by comparing our patients (n = 89) treated with SBRT on the CyberKnife unit vs. conventional radiation between January 2005 and January 2021, and by reviewing the literature. A systematic search was performed leveraging Medline for references on SBRT use in pancreatic cancer without date terms or language restrictions. A total of 3702 references were identified and the search was then repeated in Embase and the Cochrane database. Ultimately, 12 studies were eligible for inclusion, which either compared SBRT to conventional radiation, or SBRT use in dose escalation for primary LAPC in a non-neoadjuvant setting. Our cohort's median overall survival was 152 days (CI 95%, 118–185); including 371 days (CI 95%, 230–511) vs. 126 days (CI 95%, 90–161) favoring SBRT, p = 0.004. The median time to local progression was 170 days (48–923) for SBRT vs. 107 days (27–489) for the non-ablative group. In our SBRT patients, no local progressions were seen with BED10 > 60 Gy. Even when palliating LAPC, SBRT should be considered as an alternative to conventional radiation, especially in patients with a low disease burden. BED10 ≥ 60–70 Gy offers better local control without increasing toxicity rates. Less local progression may provide a better quality of life to those patients who already have a short life expectancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing prevalence and complexity of re-irradiation cases, there is a need for comprehensive policies and procedures to ensure optimal patient outcomes and minimize risk. A critical incident involving re-irradiation was reported to Ontario Health-Cancer Care Ontario (OH-CCO) which prompted a review of re-irradiation practices across radiation treatment facilities. The aim of the OH-CCO Re-Irradiation Symposium Webinar was to explore re-irradiation incidents and lessons learned and current re-irradiation practices and processes across the province with the goal of knowledge transfer exchange and best practice sharing. In the context of this webinar, re-irradiation was defined as delivery of a new course of radiation therapy to a previously irradiated volume where there is overlap or potential overlap between the two plans. Prior to the webinar, a pre-meeting survey was circulated to the radiation therapy managers at each of Ontario's radiation treatment facilities. The managers were asked to coordinate one submission per centre in collaboration with the inter-professional team. The survey included questions on re-irradiation policy, gathering radiation treatment history and combining previous and current plans. A 100% response rate (n=15) was achieved. The OH-CCO Re-Irradiation Symposium webinar was held in June 2023. The webinar included an overview of the epidemiology of re-irradiation, a review of the pre-meeting survey results, a summary of the Radiation Incident Safety Committee (RISC) analysis of re-irradiation incidents reported to the National System for Incident Reporting-Radiation Treatment (NSIR-RT), a presentation of a critical incident involving re-irradiation and the resulting quality care review recommendations, and a showcase of re-irradiation processes and learnings from three radiation treatment facilities. The webinar also included four discussion periods where participants could ask questions and share their experiences and challenges with re-irradiation processes. A showing of the recorded webinar was hosted in November 2023 for those unable to attend the live event. The benefits of the webinar included bringing representatives from all radiation treatment facilities to participate in knowledge transfer exchange and best practice sharing, as well as increasing awareness of variation in current re-irradiation processes and challenges with creating or updating these processes. 93% of radiation treatment facilities indicated during the pre-meeting survey that they would be interested in sharing their re-irradiation policy/process with other facilities highlighting an appetite for continued collaboration amongst facilities. The main challenge of the webinar was the size of the group and the virtual setting, which made participation in discussion more difficult and limited the interaction among attendees. Over 180 participants attended the live webinar and/or the showing of the recording. There was representation from each of Ontario's radiation treatment facilities including participants from multiple areas of the multidisciplinary team (i.e. radiation oncologists, medical physicists, clinical specialist radiation therapists, radiation therapists, dosimetrists, clinical educators, radiation nurses, management, students etc.). Opportunities for continued collaboration and best practice sharing have stemmed from this webinar. Suggestions for future symposia topics were raised by the participants; these will be explored by the OH-CCO team. Work is underway to collect re-irradiation policies/processes from each of Ontario's radiation treatment facilities with the goal of developing a recommendation document to support creating or updating these processes to improve their effectiveness. There has also been interest in forming a provincial re-irradiation working group to establish provincial guidelines and promote consensus on re-irradiation practices both clinically and logistically. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ambulatory cancer centers face a fluctuating patient demand and deploy specialized personnel who have variable availability. This undermines operational stability through the misalignment of resources to patient needs, resulting in overscheduled clinics, budget deficits, and wait times exceeding provincial targets. We describe the deployment of a Learning Health System framework for operational improvements within the entire ambulatory center. Known methods of value stream mapping, operations research and statistical process control were applied to achieve organizational high performance that is data-informed, agile and adaptive. We transitioned from a fixed template model by an individual physician to a caseload management by disease site model that is realigned quarterly. We adapted a block schedule model for the ambulatory oncology clinic to align the regional demand for specialized services with optimized human and physical resources. We demonstrated an improved utilization of clinical space, increased weekly consistency and improved distribution of activity across the workweek. The increased value, represented as the ratio of monthly encounters per nursing worked hours, and the increased percentage of services delivered by full-time nurses were benefits realized in our cancer system. The creation of a data-informed demand capacity model enables the application of predictive analytics and business intelligence tools that will further enhance clinical responsiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To assess correlation of pretreatment specific growth rate (SGR) value of 0.43 × 10‐2 with overall and failure‐free survival of patients with early‐stage non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods: A retrospective chart review of 160 patients with pathologically confirmed stage I NSCLC treated with SBRT between June 2010 and December 2012 in a large, tertiary cancer institute was undertaken. Both diagnostic and archived planning CT were uploaded to the treatment planning system to determine tumor volume at diagnosis (GTV1) and planning time (GTV2). The time (t) between both CTs was recorded. SGR was calculated using GTV1, GTV2, and t. The median SGR (0.43 × 10‐2) from our previous data was used to group patients into low and high SGR cohorts. Log‐rank test was used to compare overall (OS) and failure‐free survivals (FFS) of SGR groups. Results: The median time interval between diagnostic and planning CT scans was 87 days. The median OS was 38 and 66 months for high and low SGR cohorts, respectively (P = 0.03). The median FFS was 27 and 55 months for high and low SGR cohorts, respectively (P = 0.005). High SGR (P < 0.05), male gender (P = <0.01), and GTV2 (P = <0.05) were associated with poorer FFS. Conclusions: High SGR was associated with poorer outcome in patients with early‐stage NSCLC treated with SBRT. SGR can be used in conjunction with other well‐known predictive factors to formulate a practical predictive model to identify subgroups of the patient at higher risk of recurrence after SBRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: The purpose of this study is to review our experience with platinum fiducials in terms of feasibility of placement and detectability by both MRI and orthogonal x-ray images used in robotic SABR. Materials and Methods: 29 consecutive SABR patients (30 tumors) treated using fiducial tracking between January 2011 and February 2012 were reviewed. A total of 108 fiducials implanted in or around various tumor sites were identified. The pixel value contrast (PVC) of fiducials seen on MRI mages and treatment unit x-ray images of patients and phantoms were analysed. Results: Migration rates were similar for PS versus GS and GC (6.2%). No difference was noted between the mean PVC in cirrhotic versus non-cirrhotic liver (60.4 vs. 47.9; p = 0.074). MRI sequences for tumors in the liver and other organs revealed a mean PVC for platinum superior to that of gold (p<0.001). No PVC difference was seen between gold and platinum on analysis of the treatment unit x-rays. Conclusion: Platinum seeds provide a superior detectability in comparison to gold seeds or coils on MRI images and are detected equally well by an image guidance system using orthogonal x-rays, making them a better choice for fiducial-based CT-MRI registration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Neoadjuvant chemoradiation followed by surgery (NeoCRT) has been advocated as standard therapy for resectable esophageal cancer. Our objective was to compare oncologic outcomes between NeoCRT and upfront surgical resection (SURG). Methods: We conducted a single-institution, retrospective review of all potentially resectable esophageal cancer patients treated with NeoCRT or SURG. Results: From 2003 to 2010, 151 patients had NeoCRT (n = 48; 31.8%) or SURG (n = 103; 68.1%). Histology was mostly adenocarcinoma (77.5%) or squamous carcinoma (19.2%). Mean radiation dose was 44 ± 0.1 Gy, and 80.8% received platinum-based doublet chemotherapy. There were more women in the SURG group (23.3% vs 4.2%; p < 0.01) and more cardiovascular comorbidity in the NeoCRT group (39.6% vs 21.4%; p = 0.027). There was no difference in age, histology, R0 resection rate, and treatment-related mortality (NeoCRT = 4.2%; SURG = 3.9%; p = 0.15). Failure to undergo resection after NeoCRT (n = 11; 22.9%) was mainly due to disease progression (n = 6) or treatment-related mortality (n = 4). Resection could not be performed in 4 SURG patients (3.9%; p < 0.001; unresectable = 2; occult metastases = 2). NeoCRT did not improve median survival (NeoCRT = 29 ± 6; SURG = 26 ± 3 months; p = 0.376) or recurrence-free interval (NeoCRT = 25.8 ± 5; SURG = 19.4 ± 2 months; p = 0.19). Complete pathologic response (n = 8; 21.6%) was not associated with improved survival. If we exclude from analysis NeoCRT patients who did not undergo surgery, survival was significantly improved after NeoCRT (NeoCRT = 41 ± 15; SURG = 24 ± 8 months; p = 0.0082). Conclusions: Patient selection and early assessment of treatment response may be key factors in identifying the best candidates for trimodality therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• The first pan-Canadian recommendations created to support equitable and timely access to quality proton therapy. • Input from experts across Canada, external peer-review, and community consultation included. • 27 consensus recommendations developed for patient eligibility, program and system levels. Proton Beam Therapy (PBT) is a treatment option for select cancer patients. It is currently not available in Canada. Assessment and referral processes for out-of-country treatment for eligible patients vary by jurisdiction, leading to variability in access to this treatment for Canadian cancer patients. The purpose of this initiative was to develop a framework document to inform consistent and equitable PBT access for appropriate patients through the creation of pan-Canadian PBT access consensus recommendations. A modified Delphi process was used to develop pan-Canadian recommendations with input from 22 PBT clinical and administrative experts across all provinces, external peer-review by provincial cancer and system partners, and feedback from a targeted community consultation. This was conducted by electronic survey and live discussion. Consensus threshold was set at 70% agreement. Four consensus rounds resulted in a final set of 27 recommendations divided into three categories: patient eligibility (n = 9); program level (n = 10); and system level (n = 8). Patient eligibility included: anatomic site (n = 4), patient characteristics (n = 3), clinical efficacy (n = 2). Program level included: regulatory and staff requirements (n = 5), equipment and technologies (n = 4), quality assurance (n = 1). System level included: referral process (n = 5), costing, budget impact and quality adjusted life years (n = 2), eligible patient estimates (n = 1). Recommendations were released nationally in June 2021 and distributed to all 43 cancer programs in Canada. A pan-Canadian consensus-building approach was successful in creating an evidence-based, peer-reviewed suite of recommendations that support application of consistent clinical criteria to inform treatment options, facility set-up and access to high quality proton therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Concurrent chemoradiotherapy is the standard of care in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, but the optimal radiotherapy schedule and dose remains controversial. The aim of this study was to establish a standard chemoradiotherapy treatment regimen in limited-stage small-cell lung cancer.Methods: The CONVERT trial was an open-label, phase 3, randomised superiority trial. We enrolled adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who had cytologically or histologically confirmed limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, and adequate pulmonary function. Patients were recruited from 73 centres in eight countries. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either 45 Gy radiotherapy in 30 twice-daily fractions of 1·5 Gy over 19 days, or 66 Gy in 33 once-daily fractions of 2 Gy over 45 days, starting on day 22 after commencing cisplatin-etoposide chemotherapy (given as four to six cycles every 3 weeks in both groups). The allocation method used was minimisation with a random element, stratified by institution, planned number of chemotherapy cycles, and performance status. Treatment group assignments were not masked. The primary endpoint was overall survival, defined as time from randomisation until death from any cause, analysed by modified intention-to-treat. A 12% higher overall survival at 2 years in the once-daily group versus the twice-daily group was considered to be clinically significant to show superiority of the once-daily regimen. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00433563) and is currently in follow-up.Findings: Between April 7, 2008, and Nov 29, 2013, 547 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive twice-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (274 patients) or once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy (273 patients). Four patients (one in the twice-daily group and three in the once-daily group) did not return their case report forms and were lost to follow-up; these patients were not included in our analyses. At a median follow-up of 45 months (IQR 35-58), median overall survival was 30 months (95% CI 24-34) in the twice-daily group versus 25 months (21-31) in the once-daily group (hazard ratio for death in the once daily group 1·18 [95% CI 0·95-1·45]; p=0·14). 2-year overall survival was 56% (95% CI 50-62) in the twice-daily group and 51% (45-57) in the once-daily group (absolute difference between the treatment groups 5·3% [95% CI -3·2% to 13·7%]). The most common grade 3-4 adverse event in patients evaluated for chemotherapy toxicity was neutropenia (197 [74%] of 266 patients in the twice-daily group vs 170 [65%] of 263 in the once-daily group). Most toxicities were similar between the groups, except there was significantly more grade 4 neutropenia with twice-daily radiotherapy (129 [49%] vs 101 [38%]; p=0·05). In patients assessed for radiotherapy toxicity, was no difference in grade 3-4 oesophagitis between the groups (47 [19%] of 254 patients in the twice-daily group vs 47 [19%] of 246 in the once-daily group; p=0·85) and grade 3-4 radiation pneumonitis (4 [3%] of 254 vs 4 [2%] of 246; p=0·70). 11 patients died from treatment-related causes (three in the twice-daily group and eight in the once-daily group).Interpretation: Survival outcomes did not differ between twice-daily and once-daily concurrent chemoradiotherapy in patients with limited-stage small-cell lung cancer, and toxicity was similar and lower than expected with both regimens. Since the trial was designed to show superiority of once-daily radiotherapy and was not powered to show equivalence, the implication is that twice-daily radiotherapy should continue to be considered the standard of care in this setting.Funding: Cancer Research UK (Clinical Trials Awards and Advisory Committee), French Ministry of Health, Canadian Cancer Society Research Institute, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (Cancer Research Fund, Lung Cancer, and Radiation Oncology Groups). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and objectives Standard management of stage II non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is surgery, often followed by adjuvant chemotherapy. However, some patients do not undergo surgery for various reasons. The optimal non-surgical management of stage II NSCLC is undefined. We surveyed Canadian oncologists to understand current practices. Materials and methods Canadian oncologists specializing in the management of lung cancer were invited by email to complete an anonymous, online survey developed by the research team. Physician demographics were recorded. Physicians were asked to comment on their practice and make treatment choices in eight clinical scenarios of inoperable stage II NSCLC. Results Responses were received from 81/194 physicians (42% response rate), 57% medical and 42% radiation oncologists. Most physicians (90%) had a practice with at least 25% lung cancer patients and 85% were based at an academic institution. Across eight clinical patient scenarios, radical therapy was selected 79–98% of the time. Radical radiotherapy alone and concurrent chemoradiotherapy were the preferred options for these patients, while sequential chemoradiation was less favoured. Nodal status (N0 vs N1) did not influence choice of therapy (p 0.31), but the reason for patient inoperability did (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in choice of therapy when comparing responses between medical vs radiation oncologists, academic vs community physicians, and physicians with high vs low proportion of lung cancer patients. Conclusion Most lung cancer physicians manage inoperable stage II NSCLC patients with curative intent, but consensus on how to optimally employ radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy is lacking. Future prospective, randomized trials are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The aim of this study was to determine whether the preradiation maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) of the primary tumor for [18F]-fluoro-2-deoxy-glucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET) has a prognostic significance in patients with Stage T1 or T2N0 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) treated with curative radiation therapy, whether conventional or stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Methods and Materials: Between January 2007 and December 2011, a total of 163 patients (180 tumors) with medically inoperable histologically proven Stage T1 or T2N0 NSCLC and treated with radiation therapy (both conventional and SBRT) were entered in a research ethics board approved database. All patients received pretreatment FDG-PET / computed tomography (CT) at 1 institution with consistent acquisition technique. The medical records and radiologic images of these patients were analyzed. Results: The overall survival at 2 years and 3 years for the whole group was 76% and 67%, respectively. The mean and median SUVmax were 8.1 and 7, respectively. Progression-free survival at 2 years with SUVmax <7 was better than that of the patients with tumor SUVmax ≥7 (67% vs 51%; P=.0096). Tumors with SUVmax ≥7 were associated with a worse regional recurrence-free survival and distant metastasis-free survival. In the multivariate analysis, SUVmax ≥7 was an independent prognostic factor for distant metastasis-free survival. Conclusion: In early-stage NSCLC managed with radiation alone, patients with SUVmax ≥7 on FDG-PET / CT scan have poorer outcomes and high risk of progression, possibly because of aggressive biology. There is a potential role for adjuvant therapies for these high-risk patients with intent to improve outcomes. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Purpose: A new 4D in vivo dosimetry tool, RADPOS, has been used on lung cancer patients to evaluate the feasibility of using the detectors to characterize variations in patient breathing patterns as well as to monitor daily variations in dose. Methods and materials: The RADPOS system combines a MOSFET dosimeter with an electromagnetic positioning sensor for simultaneous measurement of real-time dose and spatial coordinates. Three RADPOS sensors were placed on patients’ chest and abdomen during a 4DCT and daily treatments. A fourth detector was also placed on the couch as reference. Position data were collected in real-time and total dose was read at the end of each fraction. Results: Significant deviations in surface motion have been found between the day of 4DCT and treatment fractions in 9 of 10 patients. Variations in daily dose ranged from 2.5 to 13.7cGy (2.8–14.0%) and results agreed with treatment plan values for all but three points. Conclusions: Changes in breathing motion have been found that emphasize a need for continued position monitoring. RADPOS measurements can be used to monitor such variations as well as to measure surface dose without any disruption to the treatment schedule or discomfort to patients. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]