Search

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.

Introduction: Our objective was to assess the effect of 18F-DCFPyL prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA) positron emission tomography (PET) on the management and outcomes of patients receiving salvage radiotherapy following biochemical failure (BF) post-radical prostatectomy (RP) using a matched cohort analysis. Methods: A PSMA-PET cohort of patients with BF post-RP was identified through a prospective registry. Patients from this registry were included if they did not have disease outside of the pelvis and underwent salvage radiotherapy to the prostate and/or pelvis. Case-control matching was performed with a contemporary cohort of patients with BF post-RP without PSMA-PET information. Results: Forty-four patients were included in the PSMA-PET cohort and 80 were analyzed in the non-PSMA-PET cohort. The PSMA-PET cohort had a significantly higher pre-radiotherapy median prostate-specific antigen (PSA) of 0.48 ng/mL compared to 0.20 ng/mL in the non-PSMA-PET cohort (p0.99) and matched patients (p=0.808 and 0.808), respectively. Metastasis-free survival was significantly higher in the matched PSMA-PET cohort compared to the matched non-PSMA-PET cohort (p=0.046), although a higher proportion of patients in the non-PSMA-PET cohort underwent PSMA-PET restaging after BF (52 vs. 20%, p=0.08726). Conclusions: Our study showed that patients undergoing PSMA-PET scans after BF post-RP had a higher likelihood of pelvic nodal treatment at the time of salvage RT. Despite higher PSA levels at salvage, we identified no recurrence or survival differences.

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.

Background Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) has emerged as a new treatment option for patients with oligometastatic disease. SABR delivers precise, high-dose, hypofractionated radiotherapy, and achieves excellent rates of local control for primary tumors or metastases. A recent randomized phase II trial evaluated SABR in a group of patients with a small burden of oligometastatic disease (mostly with 1–3 metastatic lesions), and found that SABR was associated with benefits in progression-free survival and overall survival. The goal of this phase III trial is to assess the impact of SABR in patients with 4–10 metastatic cancer lesions. Methods One hundred and fifty-nine patients will be randomized in a 1:2 ratio between the control arm (consisting of standard of care palliative-intent treatments), and the SABR arm (consisting of standard of care treatment + SABR to all sites of known disease). Randomization will be stratified by two factors: histology (Group 1: prostate, breast, or renal; Group 2: all others), and type of pre-specified systemic therapy (Group 1: immunotherapy/targeted; Group 2: cytotoxic; Group 3: observation). SABR is to be completed within 2 weeks, allowing for rapid initiation of systemic therapy. Recommended SABR doses are 20 Gy in 1 fraction, 30 Gy in 3 fractions, or 35 Gy in 5 fractions, chosen to minimize risks of toxicity. The primary endpoint is overall survival, and secondary endpoints include progression-free survival, time to development of new metastatic lesions, quality of life, and toxicity. Translational endpoints include assessment of circulating tumor cells, cell-free DNA, and tumor tissue as prognostic and predictive markers, including assessment of immunological predictors of response and long-term survival. Discussion This study will provide an assessment of the impact of SABR on clinical outcomes and quality of life, to determine if long-term survival can be achieved for selected patients with 4–10 oligometastatic lesions. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03721341. Date of registration: October 26, 2018. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5977-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) has demonstrated the ability to localize intraprostatic lesions. It is our goal to determine how to optimally target the underlying histopathological cancer within the setting of high-dose-rate brachytherapy (HDR-BT).Ten prostatectomy patients had pathologist-annotated mid-gland histology registered to pre-procedural mpMRI, which were interpreted by four different observers. Simulated HDR-BT plans with realistic catheter placements were generated by registering the mpMRI lesions and corresponding histology annotations to previously performed clinical HDR-BT implants. Inverse treatment planning was used to generate treatment plans that treated the entire gland to a single dose of 15 Gy, as well as focally targeted plans that aimed to escalate dose to the mpMRI lesions to 20.25 Gy. Three margins to the lesion were explored: 0 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm. The analysis compared the dose that would have been delivered to the corresponding histologically-defined cancer with the different treatment planning techniques.mpMRI-targeted plans delivered a significantly higher dose to the histologically-defined cancer (p0.001), in comparison to the standard treatment plans. Additionally, adding a 1 mm margin resulted in significantly higher D98, and D90 to the histologically-defined cancer in comparison to the 0 mm margin targeted plans (p = 0.019p = 0.0026). There was no significant difference between plans using 1 mm and 2 mm margins.Adding a 1 mm margin to intraprostatic mpMRI lesions significantly increased the dose to histologically-defined cancer, in comparison applying no margin. No significant effect was observed by further expanding the margins.