Developing an educational "hub": impact of a distance-learning curriculum in a multinational cohort.

PURPOSE: To address a gap in radiation oncology education in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we sought to evaluate the effectiveness and generalizability of a refined curriculum on intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) offered to existing radiation therapy (RT) clinics across Africa and Latin America (LATAM) at no cost. METHODS: A curriculum was created based on prior needs assessments and adapted for participating medical physicists, radiation oncologists, radiation therapists, and trainees in LMICs. English-speaking and Spanish-speaking teams of volunteer educators delivered 27 hour-long sessions 1-2 times weekly for 4 months using video conferencing to African and LATAM cohorts, respectively. Pre- and post-course multiple-choice examinations were administered to LATAM participants, and pre- and post-course self-confidence (1-5 Likert-scale) and open-ended feedback were collected from all participants. RESULTS: Twenty-five centers across Africa (13) and LATAM (12) participated, yielding a total of 332 enrolled participants (128 African, 204 LATAM). Sessions were delivered with a mean of 44 (22.5) and 85 (25.4) participants in the African and LATAM programs, respectively. Paired pre and post-course data demonstrated significant (p < 0.001) improvement in knowledge from 47.9 to 89.6% and self-confidence across four domains including foundations (+ 1.1), commissioning (+ 1.3), contouring (+ 1.7), and treatment planning (+ 1.0). Attendance was a significant predictor of change in self-confidence in "high attendance" participants only, suggesting a threshold effect. Qualitative data demonstrates that participants look forward to applying their knowledge in the clinical setting. CONCLUSION: A specialized radiation oncology curriculum adapted for LMIC audiences was effective for both African and LATAM participants. Participant feedback suggests that the refined IMRT course empowered clinics with knowledge and confidence to help train others. This feasible "Hub and Spokes" approach in which a distance-learning course establishes a hub to be leveraged by spokes (learners) may be generalizable to others aiming to reduce global health care disparities through training efforts.

Factors Associated With Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer Outcomes.

Importance: Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients receiving neoadjuvant therapy and surgery for locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC) achieve less favorable clinical outcomes than non-Hispanic White patients, but the source of this disparity is incompletely understood. Objective: To assess whether racial and ethnic disparities in treatment outcomes among patients with LARC could be accounted for by social determinants of health and demographic, clinical, and pathologic factors known to be associated with treatment response. Design, Setting, and Participants: The National Cancer Database was interrogated to identify patients with T3 to T4 or N1 to N2 LARC treated with neoadjuvant therapy and surgery. Patients were diagnosed between January 1, 2004, and December 31, 2017. Data were culled from the National Cancer Database from July 1, 2022, through December 31, 2023. Exposure: Neoadjuvant therapy for rectal cancer followed by surgical resection. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the rate of pathologic complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant therapy. Secondary outcomes were rate of tumor downstaging and achievement of pN0 status. Results: A total of 34 500 patient records were reviewed; 21 679 of the patients (62.8%) were men and 12 821 (37.2%) were women. The mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 59.7 (12.0) years. In terms of race and ethnicity, 2217 patients (6.4%) were Hispanic, 2843 (8.2%) were non-Hispanic Black, and 29 440 (85.3%) were non-Hispanic White. Hispanic patients achieved tumor downstaging (48.9% vs 51.8%; P = .01) and pN0 status (66.8% vs 68.8%; P = .02) less often than non-Hispanic White patients. Non-Hispanic Black race, but not Hispanic ethnicity, was associated with less tumor downstaging (odds ratio [OR], 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]), less frequent pN0 status (OR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.83-0.99]), and less frequent pCR (OR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92]). Other factors associated with reduced rate of pCR included rural location (OR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.69-0.93]), lack of or inadequate insurance (OR for Medicaid, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.76-0.98]; OR for no insurance, 0.65 [95% CI, 0.54-0.78]), and treatment in a low-volume center (OR for first quartile, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.62-0.87]; OR for second quartile, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.70-0.90]; OR for third quartile, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.78-0.94]). Clinical and pathologic variables associated with a decreased pCR included higher tumor grade (OR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.70]), advanced tumor stage (OR for T3, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.42-0.76]; OR for T4, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.22-0.42]), and lymph node-positive disease (OR for N1, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]; OR for N2, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.65-0.82]). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study suggest that disparate treatment outcomes for Hispanic and non-Hispanic Black patients are likely multifactorial in origin. Future investigation into additional social determinants of health and biological variables is warranted.

Adverse Events Reported by Patients With Cancer After Administration of a 2-Dose mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine.

BACKGROUND: Most safety and efficacy trials of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines excluded patients with cancer, yet these patients are more likely than healthy individuals to contract SARS-CoV-2 and more likely to become seriously ill after infection. Our objective was to record short-term adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine in patients with cancer, to compare the magnitude and duration of these reactions with those of patients without cancer, and to determine whether adverse reactions are related to active cancer therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A prospective, single-institution observational study was performed at an NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. All study participants received 2 doses of the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine separated by approximately 3 weeks. A report of adverse reactions to dose 1 of the vaccine was completed upon return to the clinic for dose 2. Participants completed an identical survey either online or by telephone 2 weeks after the second vaccine dose. RESULTS: The cohort of 1,753 patients included 67.5% who had a history of cancer and 12.0% who were receiving active cancer treatment. Local pain at the injection site was the most frequently reported symptom for all respondents and did not distinguish patients with cancer from those without cancer after either dose 1 (39.3% vs 43.9%; P=.07) or dose 2 (42.5% vs 40.3%; P=.45). Among patients with cancer, those receiving active treatment were less likely to report pain at the injection site after dose 1 compared with those not receiving active treatment (30.0% vs 41.4%; P=.002). The onset and duration of adverse events was otherwise unrelated to active cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: When patients with cancer were compared with those without cancer, few differences in reported adverse events were noted. Active cancer treatment had little impact on adverse event profiles.

External beam radiation therapy (EBRT) for asymptomatic bone metastases in patients with solid tumors reduces the risk of skeletal-related events (SREs).

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of administering external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) to patients with asymptomatic bone metastases has rarely been addressed in clinical investigations. The aim of this study was to determine if cancer patients who were treated with EBRT for asymptomatic bone metastases experienced later onset of pain and skeletal-related events (SREs) than those who were untreated. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was conducted for prostate, breast, and lung cancer patients with asymptomatic bone metastases treated at a single cancer center from 2007 to 2017. Patients who received EBRT for asymptomatic bone metastases were compared to those who received medical or supportive therapy only. RESULTS: When all cancer groups were combined, the median time from the diagnosis of asymptomatic bone metastases to either moderate-to-severe pain or an SRE was 25 months for the untreated patients and 81 months for the patients receiving EBRT (P<0.001). The delay in the first occurrence of pain or an SRE following EBRT was observed for patients with prostate cancer (P=0.025) and lung cancer (P=0.029) but not for patients with breast cancer. In a multivariate analysis, EBRT was again shown to reduce the risk of developing pain or an SRE when all cancer types were combined (P=0.006). OS was not altered by EBRT. CONCLUSIONS: EBRT administered to a group of prostate, lung, and breast cancer patients with asymptomatic bone metastases was associated with an increase in time to the first occurrence of either pain or an SRE. These data demonstrate that there may be clinical settings in which EBRT should be used to delay or prevent late complications of bone metastases that are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis.