Stereotactic Ablative radiotherapy before resection to avoid delay for early-stage lung cancer or oligometastases during the COVID-19 pandemic: Pathologic outcomes from the SABR-BRIDGE protocol.

BACKGROUND: During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related operating room closures, some multidisciplinary thoracic oncology teams adopted a paradigm of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) as a bridge to surgery, an approach called SABR-BRIDGE. This study presents the preliminary surgical and pathological results. METHODS: Eligible participants from four institutions (three in Canada and one in the United States) had early-stage presumed or biopsy-proven lung malignancy that would normally be surgically resected. SABR was delivered using standard institutional guidelines, with surgery >3 months following SABR with standardized pathologic assessment. Pathological complete response (pCR) was defined as absence of viable cancer. Major pathologic response (MPR) was defined as ≤10% viable tissue. RESULTS: Seventy-two patients underwent SABR. Most common SABR regimens were 34 Gy/1 (29%, n = 21), 48 Gy/3-4 (26%, n = 19), and 50/55 Gy/5 (22%, n = 16). SABR was well-tolerated, with one grade 5 toxicity (death 10 days after SABR with COVID-19) and five grade 2-3 toxicities. Following SABR, 26 patients underwent resection thus far (13 pending surgery). Median time-to-surgery was 4.5 months post-SABR (range, 2-17.5 months). Surgery was reported as being more difficult because of SABR in 38% (n = 10) of cases. Thirteen patients (50%) had pCR and 19 (73%) had MPR. Rates of pCR trended higher in patients operated on at earlier time points (75% if within 3 months, 50% if 3-6 months, and 33% if ≥6 months; p = .069). In the exploratory best-case scenario analysis, pCR rate does not exceed 82%. CONCLUSIONS: The SABR-BRIDGE approach allowed for delivery of treatment during a period of operating room closure and was well-tolerated. Even in the best-case scenario, pCR rate does not exceed 82%.

Confidence in a Vaccine against COVID-19 among Registered Nurses in Barcelona, Spain across Two Time Periods.

OBJECTIVE: To report the vaccine hesitancy (VH) for a vaccine against COVID-19 in registered nurses in Barcelona, with measurements taken at two stages, prior to the vaccination campaign and once 75% vaccination coverage had been reached. METHODS: A self-completed online survey was administered in December 2020 and again in July 2021 through the College of Nurses of Barcelona. It measured the prevalence of VH against a government-approved vaccine recommended by their employer, their intention to be vaccinated, perceptions of disease risk and vaccine protection, attitudes and beliefs to vaccination and social norm. Bivariate analysis according to VH and application time are presented. RESULTS: 2430 valid responses were obtained in the first measurement and 2027 in the second. At both times, 86% were women and 69% worked mainly in the public sector. Prior to the vaccine availability, VH was 34.2%, decreasing to 17.9%. Risk perceptions were significantly lower in those with VH compared to non-VH, in all groups studied and at both times, while safety and efficacy perceptions increased in all groups, significantly less in VH. The greatest benefit of the COVID-19 vaccine is perceived by pharmaceutical companies. VH nurses perceived a more hesitant social environment. CONCLUSION: As the vaccination was rolled out, VH in nurses declined, with time improving the confidence in the safety and efficacy of the vaccines. Risk perceptions also decreased over time, except for the perception of severity in HCW where it increased. Trust in institutions impacts trust in vaccines.

Is Remote Learning as Effective as In-Person Learning for Contouring Education? A Prospective Comparison of Face-to-Face versus Online Delivery of the Anatomy and Radiology Contouring Bootcamp.

PURPOSE: The Anatomy and Radiology Contouring (ARC) Bootcamp was a face-to-face (F2F) intervention providing integrated education for radiation oncology (RO) residents and medical physicists. To increase access, we launched an online offering in 2019. We evaluated the effect of the online course on participants' knowledge acquisition, contouring skills, and self-confidence by comparing it with the F2F course. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using modules, the online course offers content similar to that of the F2F comparator. Participants from the 2019 F2F and the 2019-2020 online course completed pre- and postevaluations assessing anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, self-confidence, and course satisfaction. RESULTS: There were 180 individuals enrolled (F2F: n = 40; online: n = 140); 57 participants (F2F: n = 30; online: n = 27) completed both evaluations. The online course had a wider geographic participation (19 countries) than F2F (4 countries). F2F had primarily RO resident participation (80%), compared with online (41%). Both cohorts demonstrated similar improvements in self-confidence pertaining to anatomy and radiology knowledge, contouring skills, and interpreting radiology images (all P < .001). Both the online (mean ± SD improvement: 6.6 ± 6.7 on a 40-point scale; P < .001) and F2F (3.7 ± 5.7; P = .002) groups showed anatomy and radiology knowledge improvement. Only the F2F group demonstrated improvement with the contouring assessment (F2F: 0.10 ± 0.17 on a 1-point Dice scale; P = .004; online: 0.07 ± 0.16; P = .076). Both cohorts perceived the course as a positive experience (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4 on a 5-point scale; online: 4.5 ± 0.6), stated it would improve their professional practice (F2F: 4.6 ± 0.5; online: 4.2 ± 0.8), and said they would recommend it to others (F2F: 4.8 ± 0.4; online: 4.4 ± 0.6). CONCLUSIONS: The online ARC Bootcamp demonstrated improved self-confidence, knowledge scores, and high satisfaction levels among participants. The offering had lower completion rates but was more accessible to geographic regions, provided a flexible learning experience, and allowed for ongoing education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Remote Contouring and Virtual Review during the COVID-19 Pandemic (RECOVR-COVID19): Results of a Quality Improvement Initiative for Virtual Resident Training in Radiation Oncology.

The need to minimize in-person interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to fewer clinical learning opportunities for trainees. With ongoing utilization of virtual platforms for resident education, efforts to maximize their value are essential. Herein we describe a resident-led quality improvement initiative to optimize remote contouring and virtual contour review. From April to June 2020, radiation oncology (RO) residents at our institution were assigned modified duties. We implemented a program to source and assign cases to residents for remote contouring and to promote and optimize virtual contour review. Resident-perceived educational value was prospectively collected and analyzed. All nine RO residents at our institution (PGY1-5) participated, and 97 cases were contoured during the evaluation period. Introduction of the Remote Contouring and Virtual Review (RECOVR) program coincided with a significant increase in mean cases contoured per week, from 5.5 to 17.3 (p = 0.015), and an increased proportion of cases receiving virtual review, from 14.8% to 58.6% (p < 0.001). Residents reported that the value of immediate feedback during virtual review was similar to that of in-person review (4.6 ± 0.1 vs. 4.5 ± 0.2, p = 0.803) and significantly higher than feedback received post hoc (e.g., email; 3.6 ± 0.2, p < 0.001). The implementation of a remote process for contour review led to significant increases in contouring, and virtual contour review was rated as highly as in-person interactions. Our findings provide a data-driven rationale and framework for integrating remote contouring and virtual review into competency-based medical education.

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.

SABR-BRIDGE: Stereotactic ABlative Radiotherapy Before Resection to AvoId Delay for Early-Stage LunG Cancer or OligomEts During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Surgical resection is the standard-of-care approach for early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Surgery is also considered an acceptable standard infit patients with oligometastatic lesions in the lungs. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to worldwide issues with access to operating room time, with patients and physicians facing uncertainty as to when surgical resection will be available, with likely delays of months. Further compounding this are concerns about increased risks of respiratory complications with lung cancer surgery during active phases of the pandemic. In this setting, many thoracic oncology teams are embracing a paradigm where stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) is used as a bridge, to provide radical-intent treatment based on a combination of immediate SABR followed by planned surgery in 3-6 months. This pragmatic approach to treatment has been named SABR-BRIDGE (Stereotactic ABlative Radiotherapy Before Resection to avoId Delay for early-stage lunG cancer or oligomEts). This term has also been applied to the pragmatic study of the outcomes of this approach. In this paper, we discuss the standards of care in treatment of early-stage (NSCLC) and pulmonary oligometastases, the impetus for the SABR-BRIDGE approach, and the controversies surrounding assessment of pathological response to neo-adjuvant radiation therapy.

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.