Postgraduate education in radiation oncology during the COVID-19 pandemic - What did we learn?

Introduction: During the COVID-19 pandemic the ESTRO School who provides international non-profit postgraduate education in Radiation Oncology and related disciplines, including Medical Physics and Radiation Technology, had to close down all live educational activities and turn online, although having only limited experience. The paper describes the experience, discusses the limitations and benefits of online education and suggests directions for the future. Materials and methods: Data about format and feedback from attendees and faculty members from the course activities held in 2019, 2020 and 2021 were made available from the ESTRO School. Results: In 2020, all but two out of thirty live courses that happened before the lockdown were canceled. Among the 18 courses scheduled in the second half of the year, seven went online with a short notice. Each course planned their activities quite differently, from compressed courses with consecutive full days online program to courses over several weeks with a few hours online a week. Both numbers of participants and different nationalities were higher than live courses in 2019 for the seven courses happening online, and courses were well evaluated by participants and faculties. Roughly-one-third of participants would prefer online courses in the future. Discussion: Although online education was well received by the majority, pros and cons exist and especially the personal discussions and networking were missed. Online education and live education are not comparable but can complement each other. Careful balancing these activities in the future is important and strategies for online andragogy are needed.

Practical considerations of single-fraction stereotactic ablative radiotherapy to the lung.

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is a well-established treatment for patients with medically inoperable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and pulmonary oligometastases. The use of single-fraction SABR in this setting is supported by excellent local control and safety profiles which appear equivalent to multi-fraction SABR based on the available data. The resource efficiency and reduction in hospital outpatient visits associated with single-fraction SABR have been particularly advantageous during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the increased interest, single-fraction SABR in subgroups of patients remains controversial, including those with centrally located tumours, synchronous targets, proximity to dose-limiting organs at risk, and concomitant severe respiratory illness. This review provides an overview of the published randomised evidence evaluating single-fraction SABR in primary lung cancer and pulmonary oligometastases, the common clinical challenges faced, immunogenic effect of SABR, as well as technical and cost-utility considerations.

Prospective assessment of stress and health concerns of radiation oncology staff during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Introduction and background: The COVID-19 pandemic has required rapid and repetitive adjustment of radiotherapy practice, hospital-level and department-level organization and hygiene measures. To prospectively monitor and manage stress levels and health concerns, employees of a radiation oncology department were invited to participate in weekly online surveys during the first year of the pandemic. Materials and methods: Starting March 31st, 2020, cross-sectional online surveys were distributed to all employees of the Department of Radiation Oncology, University Hospital Zurich. The survey included questions about the profession, the work setting, the global stress level as well as the health concerns during the past work week. Stress levels and health concerns were assessed on a 10-point scale. SurveyMonkey® was used to conduct the survey. Distribution was performed via email. Participation was anonymous and voluntary. Results: Between March 2020 and February 2021, 50 weekly surveys were distributed to 127 employees on average and resulted in 1,877 individual responses. The average response rate was 30%. The mean global stress level varied significantly by profession, ranging from 2.7 (±2.5) points for administrative staff to 6.9 (±2.3) points for radiation therapy technicians (p < 0.001). The mean global stress level was highest with 4.8 (±2.9) points for in-hospital work with direct patient contact. Health concerns were highest regarding family and friends with 4.0 (±3.1) points on average. Changes of the stress level varied in correlation with infection waves. Conclusion: Weekly online surveys for prospective assessment of stress levels and health concerns were successfully conducted during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating their feasibility and value to monitor profession and workplace specific stress patterns and to allowed for tailored interventions. The physical and mental health of frontline healthcare workers in radiation oncology should remain a top priority for departmental leadership beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.

Practice recommendations for risk-adapted head and neck cancer radiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO consensus statement.

PURPOSE: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases. RESULTS: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

Radiation Fractionation Schedules Published During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of the Quality of Evidence and Recommendations for Future Development.

PURPOSE: Numerous publications during the COVID-19 pandemic recommended the use of hypofractionated radiation therapy. This project assessed aggregate changes in the quality of the evidence supporting these schedules to establish a comprehensive evidence base for future reference and highlight aspects for future study. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Based on a systematic review of published recommendations related to dose fractionation during the COVID-19 pandemic, 20 expert panelists assigned to 14 disease groups named and graded the highest quality of evidence schedule(s) used routinely for each condition and also graded all COVID-era recommended schedules. The American Society for Radiation Oncology quality of evidence criteria were used to rank the schedules. Process-related statistics and changes in distributions of quality ratings of the highest-rated versus recommended COVID-19 era schedules were described by disease groups and for specific clinical scenarios. RESULTS: From January to May 2020 there were 54 relevant publications, including 233 recommended COVID-19-adapted dose fractionations. For site-specific curative and site-specific palliative schedules, there was a significant shift from established higher-quality evidence to lower-quality evidence and expert opinions for the recommended schedules (P = .022 and P < .001, respectively). For curative-intent schedules, the distribution of quality scores was essentially reversed (highest levels of evidence "pre-COVID" vs "in-COVID": high quality, 51.4% vs 4.8%; expert opinion, 5.6% vs 49.3%), although there was variation in the magnitude of shifts between disease sites and among specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: A large number of publications recommended hypofractionated radiation therapy schedules across numerous major disease sites during the COVID-19 pandemic, which were supported by a lower quality of evidence than the highest-quality routinely used dose fractionation schedules. This work provides an evidence-based assessment of these potentially practice-changing recommendations and informs individualized decision-making and counseling of patients. These data could also be used to support radiation therapy practices in the event of second waves or surges of the pandemic in new regions of the world.

Practice Recommendations for Lung Cancer Radiotherapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ESTRO-ASTRO Consensus Statement.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused radiotherapy resource pressures and led to increased risks for lung cancer patients and healthcare staff. An international group of experts in lung cancer radiotherapy established this practice recommendation pertaining to whether and how to adapt radiotherapy for lung cancer in the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: For this ESTRO & ASTRO endorsed project, 32 experts in lung cancer radiotherapy contributed to a modified Delphi consensus process. We assessed potential adaptations of radiotherapy in two pandemic scenarios. The first, an early pandemic scenario of risk mitigation, is characterized by an altered risk-benefit ratio of radiotherapy for lung cancer patients due to their increased susceptibility for severe COVID-19 infection, and minimization of patient travelling and exposure of radiotherapy staff. The second, a later pandemic scenario, is characterized by reduced radiotherapy resources requiring patient triage. Six common lung cancer cases were assessed for both scenarios: peripherally located stage I NSCLC, locally advanced NSCLC, postoperative radiotherapy after resection of pN2 NSCLC, thoracic radiotherapy and prophylactic cranial irradiation for limited stage SCLC and palliative thoracic radiotherapy for stage IV NSCLC. RESULTS: In a risk-mitigation pandemic scenario, efforts should be made not to compromise the prognosis of lung cancer patients by departing from guideline-recommended radiotherapy practice. In that same scenario, postponement or interruption of radiotherapy treatment of COVID-19 positive patients is generally recommended to avoid exposure of cancer patients and staff to an increased risk of COVID-19 infection. In a severe pandemic scenario characterized by reduced resources, if patients must be triaged, important factors for triage include potential for cure, relative benefit of radiation, life expectancy, and performance status. Case-specific consensus recommendations regarding multimodality treatment strategies and fractionation of radiotherapy are provided. CONCLUSION: This joint ESTRO-ASTRO practice recommendation established pragmatic and balanced consensus recommendations in common clinical scenarios of radiotherapy for lung cancer in order to address the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Practice Recommendations for Risk-Adapted Head and Neck Cancer Radiation Therapy During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An ASTRO-ESTRO Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: Because of the unprecedented disruption of health care services caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the American Society of Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) and the European Society for Radiotherapy and Oncology (ESTRO) identified an urgent need to issue practice recommendations for radiation oncologists treating head and neck cancer (HNC) in a time of limited resources and heightened risk for patients and staff. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A panel of international experts from ASTRO, ESTRO, and select Asia-Pacific countries completed a modified rapid Delphi process. Topics and questions were presented to the group, and subsequent questions were developed from iterative feedback. Each survey was open online for 24 hours, and successive rounds started within 24 hours of the previous round. The chosen cutoffs for strong agreement (≥80%) and agreement (≥66%) were extrapolated from the RAND methodology. Two pandemic scenarios, early (risk mitigation) and late (severely reduced radiation therapy resources), were evaluated. The panel developed treatment recommendations for 5 HNC cases. RESULTS: In total, 29 of 31 of those invited (94%) accepted, and after a replacement 30 of 30 completed all 3 surveys (100% response rate). There was agreement or strong agreement across a number of practice areas, including treatment prioritization, whether to delay initiation or interrupt radiation therapy for intercurrent SARS-CoV-2 infection, approaches to treatment (radiation dose-fractionation schedules and use of chemotherapy in each pandemic scenario), management of surgical cases in event of operating room closures, and recommended adjustments to outpatient clinic appointments and supportive care. CONCLUSIONS: This urgent practice recommendation was issued in the knowledge of the very difficult circumstances in which our patients find themselves at present, navigating strained health care systems functioning with limited resources and at heightened risk to their health during the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of this consensus statement is to ensure high-quality HNC treatments continue, to save lives and for symptomatic benefit.

First statement on preparation for the COVID-19 pandemic in large German Speaking University-based radiation oncology departments.

The COVID-19 pandemic is challenging modern radiation oncology. At University Hospitals, we have a mandate to offer high-end treatments to all cancer patients. However, in times of crisis we must learn to prioritize resources, especially personnel. Compromising oncological outcome will blur all statistics, therefore all measures must be taken with great caution. Communication with our neighboring countries, within societies and between departments can help meet the challenge. Here, we report on our learning system and preparation measures to effectively tackle the COVID-19 challenge in University-Based Radiation Oncology Departments.