Search

Purpose: Periorbital tumor location presents a significant challenge with 3-dimensional conformal radiation therapy or intensity modulated radiation therapy due to high tumor dose needed in the setting of close proximity to orbital structures with lower tolerance. Proton beam therapy (PBT) is felt to be an effective modality in such cases due to its sharp dose gradient. Materials and Methods: We reviewed our institutional PBT registry and identified 17 patients with tumor epicenters within 2 cm of the eye and optic apparatus treated with passive scatter PBT with comparison volumetric arc therapy plans available. Maximum and mean doses to organs at risk of interest, including optic nerves, optic chiasm, lens, eye ball, pituitary, cochlea, lacrimal gland, and surrounding brain, were compared using the paired Wilcoxon signed rank test. Overall survival was determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Results: Median age was 67. Median follow-up was 19.7 months. Fourteen patients underwent upfront resection and received postoperative radiation and 3 received definitive radiation. One patient received elective neck radiation, 2 underwent reirradiation, and 3 had concurrent chemotherapy. There was a statistically significant reduction in mean dose to the optic nerves and chiasm, brain, pituitary gland, lacrimal glands, and cochlea as well as in the maximum dose to the optic nerves and chiasm, pituitary gland, lacrimal glands, and cochlea with PBT. The 18-month cumulative incidence of local failure was 19.1% and 1-year overall survival was 80.9%. Conclusion: Proton beam therapy resulted in significant dose reductions to several periorbital and optic structures compared with volumetric arc therapy. Proton beam therapy appears to be the optimal radiation modality in such cases to minimize risk of toxicity to periorbital organs at risk.

Purpose: During the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine became an attractive alternative to in-person appointments. The role of telemedicine in patients who undergo frequent on-site treatment, such as radiation therapy, is unclear. The purpose of this study was to examine telemedicine use, physician satisfaction, and barriers to continued use in radiation oncology. Methods and Materials: An anonymous, electronic survey was distributed to radiation oncologists internationally between June and October 2020. Respondents described demographic and practice characteristics, and a 5-point Likert scale assessed provider satisfaction, ease of use, and overall utility of telemedicine. Analyses include descriptive statistics and subgroup comparisons using the χ2 test and Fisher's exact test. Results: The response rate was 4.3%. Two hundred thirty-two respondents completed the survey, 63.8% of whom were male, 52.6% aged 50 or younger, and 78.0% from the United States. Only 14.2% used telemedicine previously, which increased to 93.1% during COVID-19. Among all telemedicine users, usage rates were 77.9% for initial consultations, 97.2% for follow-up visits, and 35.9% for on-treatment visits. Of the respondents, 69.8% reported that