Search

Background: Children with chest wall Ewing sarcoma with malignant pulmonary effusion or pleural stranding require hemithorax radiation, often with plans that exceed lung constraints. We investigated disease control and pneumonitis in children requiring hemithorax radiation., Procedure: Eleven children (median age 13 years) received hemithorax radiotherapy. Symptomatic radiation pneumonitis was considered National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) grade 1+ with respiratory symptoms. Mean lung dose (MLD), volume of lung exposed to a dose ≥5 Gy (V5), ≥20 Gy (V20), and ≥35 Gy (V35) were recorded. Adult and pediatric lung constraints were obtained from Quantitative Analysis of Normal Tissue Effects in the Clinic (QUANTEC) guidelines and Children's Oncology Group (COG) protocols, respectively., Results: Median hemithorax dose was 15 Gy (1.5 Gy/fraction). Median total dose was 51 Gy (1.8 Gy/fraction). Most plans delivered both protons and photons. The ipsilateral MLD, V5, and V20 were 27.2 Gy, 100%, and 48.3%; the bilateral MLD, V20, and V35 were 14.1 Gy, 22.8%, and 14.3%, respectively. One hundred percent, 36%, and 91% of treatments exceeded recommended adult ipsilateral lung constraints of V5 <65%, V20 <52%, and MLD of 22 Gy; 64%, 45%, and 82% exceeded COG bilateral lung constraints of V20 <20%, MLD <15 Gy, and MLD <12 Gy, respectively; 82% of treatments exceeded the COG ipsilateral lung constraint of V20 <30%. At a median 36 months (range 12-129), the symptomatic radiation pneumonitis incidence was 0%. Two patients progressed with nonpulmonary metastatic disease and died at a median 12 months following radiotherapy., Conclusions: Existing guidelines may overestimate pneumonitis risk, even among young children receiving multiagent chemotherapy. For children with chest wall Ewing sarcoma and other thoracic malignancies, more data are needed to refine pediatric dose-effect models for pulmonary toxicity., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Study Design: Retrospective outcomes review.Objective: To analyze and report long-term outcomes in a cohort of patients treated with radiotherapy (RT) for symptomatic hemangioma of a vertebral body.Summary Of Background Data: Data are scarce on the rate of tumor control with long-term (>5 yr) follow-up after RT for symptomatic hemangioma of a vertebral body.Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of patients treated at our institution between 1971 and 2008 for symptomatic hemangioma of a vertebral body, updated their follow-up, analyzed complications, and calculated the tumor control rate. Tumor control by imaging was defined as no increase in tumor size on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) scan. Clinical tumor control was defined as no symptoms of recurrent tumor.Results: Ten patients were eligible for analysis. All patients had pain from visible hemangioma at the time of radiotherapy for which surgical resection or interventional radiology procedures were likely to result in high morbidity. Tumors were located in the lumbar (40%), thoracic (50%), or cervical (10%) areas of the spine. The mean radiotherapy dose delivered was 47 Gy.Mean imaging follow-up after completion of radiotherapy was 8.1 years; mean clinical follow-up was 21.2 years. The tumor control rate was 90% (9/10). One patient who may have developed a tumor recurrence had radiographic and clinical evidence of tumor progression 30 years after radiotherapy. The actuarial rate of tumor control was 100% at 5, 10, 20, and 25 years. There was no grade more than or equal to three treatment toxicities, no evidence of malignant transformation, and no evidence of second tumors in treatment area (with the possible exception of the one tumor recurrence).Conclusion: RT for symptomatic hemangioma of the spine provides long-term tumor control with a low risk of serious complications. Radiotherapy is a good option when surgery or an interventional radiology procedure is high-risk. Our preferred dose is 45 Gy at 1.8 Gy/fraction.Level Of Evidence: 4. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To assess the optimal structure of an introductory curriculum (IC) for radiation oncology residents, including the perceived utility of a 2-day off-site "boot camp," and evaluate the success of a pilot introductory radiation oncology curriculum (IROC) based on these initial data.Methods and Materials: In the first phase, anonymous, web-based surveys were sent to US radiation oncology program directors and residents. Likert-type scores (1, not at all; 5, extremely) are reported as the median and interquartile range. Using the phase 1 results, IROC was developed, piloted, and evaluated.Results: Of the 89 program directors and 697 residents, 47 (53%) and 165 (24%) responded, respectively. Of the 89 program directors, 37 (79%) reported offering a formal IC. However, only 83 residents (50%) reported having a formal IC. Program directors reported resident preparation for clinical training as "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) on entering residency and "moderate" (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) after IC completion (P = .03). However, residents only believed they were "slightly" prepared (median 2, interquartile range 1-2) on entering residency and "moderately" (median 3, interquartile range 2-3) prepared after IC completion (P < .01). Program directors believed an off-site boot camp would be of "moderate" utility (median 3, interquartile range 3-4) with participation limited by funding (57%). Residents without an IC reported that having an IC would be "quite" beneficial (median 4, interquartile range 3-5). Residents preferred instruction before the clinical training (49%) and over 1 week (40%). Both program directors and residents rated lectures on radiation emergencies and simulation highly. Using these data, IROC was developed and piloted with incoming residents at 4 institutions. After IROC, residents reported improvement in overall preparedness for clinical training (before: median 1, interquartile range 1-2; vs after: median 3, interquartile range 2-3; P < .01) and among specific practice domains.Conclusions: Beginning radiation oncology residents frequently lack structured introductory curricula but desire instruction before the clinical training with a focus on practical aspects (emergency management, contouring). Program directors recognize the value of both off-site and on-site boot camps. An on-site IC could mitigate funding barriers. A standardized IC, IROC, piloted at 4 programs, showed promising outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]