Search

Purpose: To establish the safety and efficacy of gantry-mounted linear accelerator-based stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for low- and intermediate-risk prostate cancer. Methods: We pooled 921 patients enrolled on 7 single-institution prospective phase II trials of gantry-based SBRT from 2006 to 2017. The cumulative incidences of biochemical recurrence (defined by the Phoenix definition) and physician-scored genitourinary (GU) and gastrointestinal (GI) toxicities (defined per the original trials using Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events) were estimated using a competing risk framework. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationship between late toxicity and prespecified covariates: biologically effective dose, every other day versus weekly fractionation, intrafractional motion monitoring, and acute toxicity. Results: Median follow-up was 3.1 years (range, 0.5-10.8 years). In addition, 505 (54.8%) patients had low-risk disease, 236 (25.6%) had favorable intermediate-risk disease, and 180 (19.5%) had unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Intrafractional motion monitoring was performed in 78.0% of patients. The 3-year cumulative incidence of biochemical recurrence was 0.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 0-1.7%), 2.2% (95% CI, 0-4.3%), and 5.1% (95% CI, 1.0-9.2%) for low-, favorable intermediate-, and unfavorable intermediate-risk disease. Acute grade ≥2 GU and GI toxicity occurred in 14.5% and 4.6% of patients, respectively. Three-year cumulative incidence estimates of late grade 2 GU and GI toxicity were 4.1% (95% CI, 2.6-5.5%) and 1.3% (95% CI, 0.5-2.1%), respectively, with late grade ≥3 GU and GI toxicity estimates of 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-1.3%) and 0.4% (95% CI, 0-0.8%), respectively. The only identified significant predictors of late grade ≥2 toxicity were acute grade ≥2 toxicity (P < .001) and weekly fractionation (P < .01), although only 12.4% of patients were treated weekly. Conclusions: Gantry-based SBRT for prostate cancer is associated with a favorable safety and efficacy profile, despite variable intrafractional motion management techniques. These findings suggest that multiple treatment platforms can be used to safely deliver prostate SBRT.

Purpose: Second malignancies (SMs) after radiation therapy are rare but serious sequelae of treatment. This study investigates whether radiation therapy use is associated with changes in baseline SM risk. Methods and Materials: We extracted all patients with cancer, with or without SM, in the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results database from 1973 to 2014. Cumulative incidence of SM for patients stratified by radiation therapy status was calculated using a competing risk model, both for the entire cohort and for subgroups based on the primary tumor's anatomic location. Results: We identified 2,872,063 patients with cancer, including 761,289 patients who received radiation therapy and 2,110,774 who did not. The SM rate at 20 years for patients receiving radiation therapy versus no radiation therapy was 21.4% versus 18.8%. The relative risk for SM associated with radiation therapy for the overall group was 1.138 at 20 years. The relative risks for SM associated with radiation therapy to malignancies arising from central nervous system and orbits, head and neck, thorax, abdomen, and pelvis at 20 years were 0.704, 1.011, 0.559, 0.646, and 1.106 for men and 0.792, 1.298, 1.265, 0.780, and 0.988 for women, respectively. Conclusions: The association between SM and radiation therapy varies with both sex and disease anatomic location, with the largest increase in SM seen in females irradiated to the head and neck region. Overall, the absolute change in SM rates associated with radiation therapy remains small, with differences in various clinical contexts.

Purpose: Stereotactic magnetic resonance image–guided adaptive radiation therapy (SMART) is an emerging technique that shows promise in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and other abdominopelvic malignancies. However, it is unknown whether the time-limited nature of on-table adaptive planning may result in dosimetrically suboptimal plans. The purpose of this study was to quantitatively address that question through systemic retrospective replanning of treated on-table adaptive pancreatic cancer cases. Methods and Materials: Of 74 consecutive adapted fractions, 30 were retrospectively replanned based on deficiencies in planning target volume (PTV) and gross tumor volume (GTV) coverage or doses to organs-at-risk (OARs) that exceeded ideal constraints. Retrospective plans were created by adjusting dose-volume objectives in an iterative fashion until deemed optimized. The goal of replanning was to improve PTV/GTV coverage while keeping the dose to gastrointestinal OARs the same or lower or to reduce OAR doses while keeping PTV coverage the same or higher. The global maximum dose was required to be maintained within 2% of that of the treated adaptive plan to eliminate it as a confounding factor. A threshold of 5% improvement in PTV coverage or 5% decrease in OAR dose was used to define a clinically significant improvement. Results: Of the 30 replans, 7 obtained at least 5% PTV coverage improvement. The average increase in PTV coverage for these plans was 11%. No plans were clinically significantly improved in terms of OAR sparing. Changes in beam-on time did not show any correlation. Statistical analysis via a linear mixed-effects model with a nested random effect suggested that both GTV and PTV coverage were improved over SMART process plans by 0.91 cc (P = .02) and 2.03 cc (P < .001), respectively. Conclusions: Dosimetric plan quality of at least 10% of SMART fractions may be improved through more extensive replanning than is currently performed on-table. Further work is needed to develop an automated replanning workflow to streamline the in-depth replanning process to better fit into an on-table adaptive workflow.

Purpose: Both the superstructures of virtual discourse in radiation oncology and the entities occupying influential positions in the social media landscape of radiation oncology remain poorly characterized. Methods and Materials: NodeXL Pro was used to prospectively sample all tweets with the hashtag #radonc every 8 to 10 days during the course of 1 year (December 4, 2018, to November 29, 2019). Twitter handles were grouped into conversational clusters using the Clauset-Newman-Moore community detection algorithm. For each sample period, the top 10 #radonc Twitter influencers, defined using betweenness centrality, were categorized. Influencers were scored in each sample period according to their top 10 influence rank and summarized with descriptive statistics. Linear regression assessed for characteristics that predicted higher influence scores among top influencers. Results: In the study, 684,000 tweets were sampled over 38 periods. #radonc tweets took on the crowd superstructure of a hub-and-spoke broadcast network formed when prominent individuals are widely repeated by many audience members. Professional societies were the most influential category of Twitter handles with an average influence score of 7.63 out of 10 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.94). When industry handles were present among top 10 influencers, they exhibited the second highest average influence scores (6.75, SD = 1.06), followed by individuals with scores of 5.28 (SD = 0.43). The categories of influencers were stable during the course of 1 year. The role of attending physician, radiation oncology specialty, male sex, academic practice, and US-based handles in North America were predictors of higher influence score. Conclusions: Twitter influencers in radiation oncology represent a diverse group of people and organizations, but male academic radiation oncologists based in North America occupy particularly influential positions in virtual communities broadly characterized as “hub and spoke” broadcast networks. Periodic network-based analyses of the social media discourse in radiation oncology are warranted to maintain an awareness of the handles that are influencing discussions on Twitter and ensure that social media utilization continues to contribute to the field of radiation oncology in a meaningful way.