Search

Purpose: To develop the safest possible environment for treating urgent patients with COVID-19 requiring radiation, we describe the unique construction of negative air pressure computed tomography simulator and linear accelerator treatment vaults in addition to screening, delay, and treatment protocols and their evolution over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Materials: Construction of large high-efficiency particulate air filter air-flow systems into existing ductwork in computed tomography simulator rooms and photon and proton treatment vaults was completed to create negative-pressure rooms. An asymptomatic COVID-19 screening protocol was implemented for all patients before initiation of treatment. Patients could undergo simulation and/or treatment in the biocontainment environments according to a predefined priority scale and protocol. Patients treated under the COVID-19 protocol from June 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Negative air-flow environments were created across a regional network, including a multi-gantry proton therapy unit. In total, 6525 patients were treated from June 2020 through January 2022 across 5 separate centers. The majority of patients with COVID-19 had radiation treatment deferred when deemed safe. A total of 42 patients with COVID-19, who were at highest risk of an adverse outcome should there be a radiation delay, were treated under the COVID-19 biocontainment protocol in contrast to those who were placed on treatment break. For 61.9% of patients, these safety measures mitigated an extended break during treatment. The majority of patients (64.3%) were treated with curative intent. The median number of biocontainment sessions required by each patient was 6 (range, 1-15) before COVID-19 clearance and resumption of treatment in a normal air-flow environment. Conclusions: Constructing negative-pressure environments and developing a COVID-19 biocontainment treatment protocol allowed for the safe treatment of urgent radiation oncology patients with COVID-19 within our department and strengthens future biopreparedness. These biocontainment units set a high standard of safety in radiation oncology during the current or for any future infectious outbreak.

Purpose: The use of large-field external beam reirradiation (re-RT) after pelvic radiation therapy (RT) for genitourinary (GU) cancers has not been reported. We report the results of such treatment in patients with either symptomatic GU second malignant neoplasms or locally recurrent pelvic tumors after initial RT for whom surgery or further systemic therapy was not an option. Methods and materials: The records of 28 consecutive patients with advanced, bulky GU malignancies treated with high-dose, large-field re-RT with palliative intent between 2008 and 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. Descriptive outcome analyses focused on toxicities and symptom control, and responses were evaluated by 2 independent observers. Results: Twenty-seven male patients (96%) were included. Median initial external beam RT dose was 64 Gy (range, 30-75.6 Gy). The median time between initial RT and re-RT was 9.5 years (range, 0.2-32 years). At the time of re-RT, there were 16 local recurrences and 12 second malignant neoplasms together comprising 16 bladder, 10 prostate, 1 ureteral, and 1 penile cancer. Indications for re-RT were pain and bleeding/hemorrhage. The median equivalent sphere diameter planning target volume for re-RT was 8.6 cm (range, 4.7-16.3 cm). Given the severity of the symptoms and the bulk of the disease at the time of re-RT, a higher dose of RT was administered. The median re-RT dose was 50 Gy (range, 27.5-66 Gy). For patients who received