The Peaks and Valleys of Photon Versus Proton Spatially Fractionated Radiotherapy.

Spatially-fractionated radiotherapy (SFRT) delivers high doses to small areas of tumor while sparing adjacent tissue, including intervening disease. In this review, we explore the evolution of SFRT technological advances, contrasting approaches with photon and proton beam radiotherapy. We discuss unique dosimetric considerations and physical properties of SFRT, as well as review the preclinical literature that provides an emerging understanding of biological mechanisms. We emphasize crucial areas of future study and highlight clinical trials that are underway to assess SFRT's safety and efficacy, with a focus on immunotherapeutic synergies. The review concludes with practical considerations for SFRT's clinical application, advocating for strategies that leverage its unique dosimetric and biological properties for improved patient outcomes.

Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Nonmetastatic Breast Cancer Receiving Comprehensive Nodal Irradiation in the RadComp Trial.

PURPOSE: Our purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in the ongoing RadComp pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PRCT). METHODS AND MATERIALS: The deidentified and blinded data set included 774 English-speaking female participants who completed their 6-month posttreatment assessment. Eleven PRO measures were evaluated, including the Trial Outcome Index from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes, the BREAST-Q, and selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. PROs were measured at 3 timepoints: baseline, completion of radiation therapy (RT), and 6 months post-RT. Ten variables were used as validity anchors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated between PROs and convergent validity indicators. Mean PRO differences between clinically distinct categories were compared with analysis of variance methods (known-groups validity). PRO change scores were mapped to change in other variables (sensitivity to change). RESULTS: Most correlations between PROs and validity indicators were large (≥0.5). Mean score for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes was higher (better) for those with a lumpectomy compared with those with a mastectomy (P < .001). Mean scores for the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index and for PROMIS Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were better for those with good baseline performance status compared with those with poorer baseline performance status (P < .05). At completion of RT and post-RT, mean scores for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes and BREAST-Q Radiation were significantly different (P < .001) across categories for all Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Treatment Satisfaction - General items. There were medium-sized correlations between change scores for FACT-B Trial Outcome Index, Fatigue, Anxiety, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and change scores in the Visual Analog Scale. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving radiation in the RadComp PRCT, our findings demonstrate high reliability and validity for important PRO measures, supporting their psychometric strength and usefulness to reflect the effect of RT on health-related quality of life.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set and reporting guidelines for locoregional treatment in neoadjuvant systemic breast cancer treatment trials: the PRECEDENT project.

INTRODUCTION: Neoadjuvant systemic anticancer therapy (neoSACT) is increasingly used in the treatment of early breast cancer. Response to therapy is prognostic and allows locoregional and adjuvant systemic treatments to be tailored to minimise morbidity and optimise oncological outcomes and quality of life. Accurate information about locoregional treatments following neoSACT is vital to allow the translation of downstaging benefits into practice and facilitate meaningful interpretation of oncological outcomes, particularly locoregional recurrence. Reporting of locoregional treatments in neoSACT studies, however, is currently poor. The development of a core outcome set (COS) and reporting guidelines is one strategy by which this may be improved. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A COS for reporting locoregional treatment (surgery and radiotherapy) in neoSACT trials will be developed in accordance with Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) and Core Outcome Set-Standards for Development guidelines. Reporting guidance will be developed concurrently.The project will have three phases: (1) generation of a long list of relevant outcome domains and reporting items from a systematic review of published neoSACT studies and interviews with key stakeholders. Identified items and domains will be categorised and formatted into Delphi consensus questionnaire items. (2) At least two rounds of an international online Delphi survey in which at least 250 key stakeholders (surgeons/oncologists/radiologists/pathologists/trialists/methodologists) will score the importance of reporting each outcome. (3) A consensus meeting with key stakeholders to discuss and agree the final COS and reporting guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for the consensus process will be obtained from the Queen's University Belfast Faculty Ethics Committee. The COS/reporting guidelines will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. Dissemination materials will be produced in collaboration with our steering group and patient advocates so the results can be shared widely. REGISTRATION: The study has been prospectively registered on the COMET website (https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/2854).

Lumpectomy without radiation for ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: 20-year results from the ECOG-ACRIN E5194 study.

We report the 20-year rate of ipsilateral breast event (IBE) for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) treated with lumpectomy without radiation on a non-randomized prospective clinical trial. Patients were enrolled in cohort 1: low- or intermediate-grade DCIS, size ≤ 2.5 cm (n = 561); or cohort 2: high-grade DCIS, size ≤ 1 cm (n = 104). The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate time-to-event distributions. Cox proportional hazard methods were used to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and tests for significance for event times. 561 patients were enrolled in cohort 1 and 104 in cohort 2. After central pathology review, 26% in cohort 1 were recategorized as high-grade and 26% in cohort 2 as low- or intermediate-grade. Mean DCIS size was similar at 7.5 mm in cohort 1 and 7.8 mm in cohort 2. Surgical margin was ≥3 mm in 96% of patients, and about 30% received tamoxifen. Median follow-up was 19.2 years. There were 104 IBEs, of which 54 (52%) were invasive. The IBE and invasive IBE rates increased in both cohorts up to 15 years, then plateaued. The 20-year IBE rates were 17.8% for cohort 1 and 28.7% for cohort 2 (p = 0.005), respectively. Invasive IBE occurred in 9.8% and 15.1% (p = 0.09), respectively. On multivariable analysis, IBE risk increased with size and was higher in cohort 2, but grade and margin width were not significantly associated with IBE. For patients with DCIS treated with excision without radiation, the rate of IBE increased with size and assigned cohort mostly in the first 15 years.

Omission of Radiotherapy After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Women With Breast Cancer With Low Clinical and Genomic Risk: 5-Year Outcomes of IDEA.

PURPOSE: Multiple studies have shown a low risk of ipsilateral breast events (IBEs) or other recurrences for selected patients age 65-70 years or older with stage I breast cancers treated with breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and endocrine therapy (ET) without adjuvant radiotherapy. We sought to evaluate whether younger postmenopausal patients could also be successfully treated without radiation therapy, adding a genomic assay to classic selection factors. METHODS: Postmenopausal patients age 50-69 years with pT1N0 unifocal invasive breast cancer with margins ≥2 mm after BCS whose tumors were estrogen receptor-positive, progesterone receptor-positive, and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative with Oncotype DX 21-gene recurrence score ≤18 were prospectively enrolled in a single-arm trial of radiotherapy omission if they consented to take at least 5 years of ET. The primary end point was the rate of locoregional recurrence 5 years after BCS. RESULTS: Between June 2015 and October 2018, 200 eligible patients were enrolled. Among the 186 patients with clinical follow-up of at least 56 months, overall and breast cancer-specific survival rates at 5 years were both 100%. The 5-year freedom from any recurrence was 99% (95% CI, 96 to 100). Crude rates of IBEs for the entire follow-up period for patients age 50-59 years and age 60-69 years were 3.3% (2/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively; crude rates of overall recurrence were 5.0% (3/60) and 3.6% (5/140), respectively. CONCLUSION: This trial achieved a very low risk of recurrence using a genomic assay in combination with classic clinical and biologic features for treatment selection, including postmenopausal patients younger than 60 years. Long-term follow-up of this trial and others will help determine whether the option of avoiding initial radiotherapy can be offered to a broader group of women than current guidelines recommend.

Summary of Cardiac Computed Tomographic Imaging in Cardio-Oncology: An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this document is to develop a summary of recommendations from the "Cardiac Computed Tomographic Imaging in Cardio-Oncology: An Expert Consensus Document of the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography (SCCT)" document and provide commentary on key recommendations that are relevant to radiation oncology. METHODS: In July 2019, the SCCT convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop a consensus document based on a literature search and a formal consensus process, which was separately published in 2022. A new panel consisting of the radiation oncologist from the original guideline and additional radiation oncologists was formed to address SCCT recommendations and their implications for radiation oncology. SUMMARY: The SCCT consensus document included 6 core sections. Two of these sections were identified as particularly relevant to radiation oncologists. These include evaluation of shared risk factors and role of cardiac computed tomography in risk stratification of patients with cancer (section 1) and the role of cardiac computed tomography in the evaluation of the effects of radiation therapy (section 4). These recommendations are summarized, with additional commentary on the role of radiation oncologists as individual practitioners and radiation oncology practices as a whole in evaluation of coronary artery calcifications on computed tomography images; assessment of the effects of radiation therapy on cardiovascular risk after treatment; and management of patients at elevated risk of cardiovascular sequelae of treatment. Radiation oncologists should be aware of the recommendations in the SCCT consensus document and consider those elements that relate to their practice. This summary document calls attention to the key roles and limitations of radiation oncologists and radiation oncology practices in managing cardiotoxicity risk and highlights the need for ongoing study on the effects of radiation therapy on the heart, cardiac substructures, and long-term risk of cardiotoxicity related to treatment.

Concurrent chemotherapy with partial breast irradiation in triple negative breast cancer patients may improve disease control compared with sequential therapy.

Purpose: To report outcomes on a subset of patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) treated on prospective trials with post-lumpectomy partial breast irradiation and concurrent chemotherapy (PBICC) and compare them to a retrospectively assessed similar cohort treated with whole breast irradiation after adjuvant chemotherapy (WBIaC). Methods and materials: Women with T1-2, N0-1 invasive breast cancer with ≥ 2mm lumpectomy margins were offered therapy on one of two PBICC trials. PBI consisted of 40.5 Gy in 15 daily 2.7 Gy fractions delivered concurrently with the first 2 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy. The comparison cohort received WBI to a median dose of 60.7 Gy, (including boost, range 42.5 - 66 Gy), after completion of non-concurrent, adjuvant chemotherapy. We evaluated disease-free survival (DFS), and local/loco-regional/distant recurrence-free survival (RFS). We compared survival rates using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank test of statistical significance. Results: Nineteen patients with TNBC were treated with PBICC on prospective protocol, and 49 received WBIaC. At a median follow-up of 35.5 months (range 4.8-71.9), we observed no deaths in the PBICC cohort and 2 deaths in the WBIaC cohort (one from disease recurrence). With a median time of 23.4 (range 4.8 to 47) months, there were 7 recurrences (1 nodal, 4 local, 4 distant), all in the WBIaC group. At 5 years, there was a trend towards increased local RFS (100% vs. 85.4%, p=0.17) and loco-regional RFS (100% vs. 83.5, p=0.13) favoring the PBICC cohort. There was no significant difference in distant RFS between the two groups (100% vs. 94.4%, p=0.36). Five-year DFS was 100% with PBICC vs.78.9% (95% CI: 63.2 to 94.6%, p=0.08) with WBIaC. Conclusion: This study suggests that PBICC may offer similar and possibly better outcomes in patients with TNBC compared to a retrospective cohort treated with WBIaC. This observation is hypothesis-generating for prospective trials.

Adjuvant treatment decisions among adults aged 65 years and older with early-stage hormone receptor positive breast cancer seen in a simple multidisciplinary clinic versus standard consultation.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized studies support de-escalation of adjuvant therapy for a target population of older adults ≥65 years with stage I, estrogen-receptor (ER) positive breast cancer after breast conserving surgery. We sought to evaluate the impact of a simplified multidisciplinary clinic (s-MDC) in this population by comparing treatment patterns and patient perceptions of adjuvant radiation therapy (RT) and hormone therapy (HT) between patients seen in s-MDC vs. standard consultations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medical records were retrospectively reviewed for patients in the above target population who underwent surgery between August 2020 and May 2022 at our institution. Two cohorts were included: (1) patients seen in s-MDC, and (2) patients seen in standard clinic separately by medical and radiation oncology (non-s-MDC cohort). The non-s-MDC patients declined, could not attend, and/or were not referred to the s-MDC. Patients in the s-MDC cohort were prospectively administered validated questionnaires to evaluate patient reported data including the Decision Autonomy Preference Scale (DAPS), e-Prognosis, and Medical Maximizing-Minimizing Scale (MMS). Chi square, t-tests, and non-parametric equivalents compared demographics, and logistic regression evaluated RT and HT use and survey score outcomes between cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 127 patients met inclusion criteria, with 33 s-MDC and 94 non-s-MDC patients. There was no difference between the cohorts in age, margin status, histology, grade, or focality. In the s-MDC cohort there were significantly more patients without sentinel lymph node biopsy (71.3% vs 42.4%, p = 0.003) and mean tumor size was smaller (0.69 vs. 0.96 cm, p < 0.003), and Charlson comborbidity index (CCI) was higher (5.21 vs 4.96, p = 0.038). There was no significant difference in receipt of RT (65% s-MDC vs 77% standard; odds ratio [OR] = 0.55, p = 0.189), HT (78% ss-MDC vs 72% standard; OR = 1.36, p = 0.513), or both (50% s-MDC vs 59% standard; OR = 0.7, p = 0.429). The s-MDC cohort was significantly more likely to undergo accelerated (vs. standard hypofractionated) RT (70% vs 39%; OR = 3.59, p = 0.020). In s-MDC patients with completed questionnaires (n = 33), all whose selected "mostly patient (n=6)" based decision making by DAPS chose RT while all "mostly doctor (n=1)" chose no RT. Based on e-Prognosis, there were lower odds of RT for increasing Schonberg score/ higher 10 yr mortality risk (OR 0.600, p = 0.048). MMS score ≥ 40 ("maximizer") was strongly linked with the use of RT (OR 18.57, p = 0.011). DISCUSSION: For adults ≥65 years with early stage, ER positive breast cancer, s-MDC participation was not significantly associated with lower use of adjuvant RT or HT versus standard consultation but was significantly associated with shorter RT courses. DAPS and MMS results indicate that patient treatment preference may be predictable, highlighting an opportunity to tailor consultation discussions and recommendations based on intrinsic patient preferences and individual goals.

Improving Quality Metrics in Radiation Oncology: Implementation of Pretreatment Peer Review for Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy in Patients with Thoracic Cancer.

Purpose: Traditional peer reviews occur weekly, and can take place up to 1 week after the start of treatment. The American Society for Radiation Oncology peer-review white paper identified stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) as a high priority for contour/plan review before the start of treatment, considering both the rapid-dose falloff and short treatment course. Yet, peer-review goals for SBRT must also balance physician time demands and the desire to avoid routine treatment delays that would occur in the setting of a 100% pretreatment (pre-Tx) review compliance requirement or prolonging the standard treatment planning timeline. Herein, we report on our pilot experience of a pre-Tx peer review of thoracic SBRT cases. Methods and Materials: From March 2020 to August 2021, patients undergoing thoracic SBRT were identified for pre-Tx review, and placed on a quality checklist. We implemented twice-weekly meetings for detailed pre-Tx review of organ-at-risk/target contours and dose constraints in the treatment planning system for SBRT cases. Our quality metric goal was to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. We used a statistical process control chart with sigma limits (ie, standard deviations [SDs]) to access compliance rates with pre-Tx review implementation. Results: We identified 252 patients treated with SBRT to 294 lung nodules. When comparing pre-Tx review completion from initial rollout to full implementation, our rates improved from 19% to 79% (ie, from 1 sigma limit [SDs]) below to >2 sigma limits (SDs) above. Additionally, early completion of any form of contour/plan review (defined as any pre-Tx or standard review completed before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered) increased from 67% to 85% (March 2020-November 2020) to 76% to 94% (December 2020-August 2021). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a sustainable workflow for detailed pre-Tx contour/plan review for thoracic SBRT cases in the context of twice-weekly disease site-specific peer-review meetings. We reached our quality improvement objective to peer review ≥90% of SBRT cases before exceeding 25% of the dose delivered. This process was feasible to conduct in an integrated network of sites across our system.

Selective de-implementation of routine in vivo dosimetry.

As cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has become the localization method for a majority of cases, the indications for diode-based confirmation of accurate patient set-up and treatment are now limited and must be balanced between proper resource allocation and optimizing efficiency without compromising safety. We undertook a de-implementation quality improvement project to discontinue routine diode use in non-intensity modulated radiotherapy (IMRT) cases in favor of tailored selection of scenarios where diodes may be useful. After analysis of safety reports from the last 5 years, literature review, and stakeholder discussions, our safety and quality (SAQ) committee introduced a recommendation to limit diode use to specific scenarios in which in vivo verification may add value to standard quality assurance (QA) processes. To assess changes in patterns of use, we reviewed diode use by clinical indication 4 months prior and after the implementation of the revised policy, which includes use of diodes for: 3D conformal photon fields set up without CBCT; total body irradiation (TBI); electron beams; cardiac devices within 10 cm of the treatment field; and unique scenarios on a case-by-case basis. We identified 4459 prescriptions and 1038 unique instances of diode use across five clinical sites from 5/2021 to 1/2022. After implementation of the revised policy, we observed an overall decrease in diode use from 32% to 13.2%, with a precipitous drop in 3D cases utilizing CBCT (from 23.2% to 4%), while maintaining diode utilization in the 5 selected scenarios including 100% of TBI and electron cases. By identifying specific indications for diode use and creating a user-friendly platform for case selection, we have successfully de-implemented routine diode use in favor of a selective process that identifies cases where the diode is important for patient safety. In doing so, we have streamlined patient care and decreased cost without compromising patient safety.

Radiotherapy Deserts: The Impact of Race, Poverty, and the Rural-Urban Continuum on Density of Providers and the Use of Radiation Therapy in the US.

PURPOSE: Prior efforts to characterize disparities in radiation therapy access and receipt have not comprehensively investigated interplay between race, socioeconomic status, and geography relative to oncologic outcomes. This study sought to define these complex relationships at the US county level for prostate cancer (PC) and invasive breast (BC) cancer to build a tool that facilitates identification of "radiotherapy deserts"-regions with mismatch between radiation therapy resources and oncologic need. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An ecologic study model was constructed using national databases to evaluate 3,141 US counties. Radiation therapy resources and use densities were operationalized as physicians to persons at risk (PPR) and use to persons at risk (UPR): the number of attending radiation oncologists and Medicare beneficiaries per 100,000 persons at risk, respectively. Oncologic need was defined by "hot zone" counties with ≥2 standard deviations (SDs) above mean incidence and death rates. Univariable and multivariable logistic regressions examined links between PPR and UPR densities, epidemiologic variables, and hot zones for oncologic outcomes. Statistics are reported at a significance level of P < .05. RESULTS: The mean (SD) PPR and UPR densities were 2.1 (5.9) and 192.6 (557.6) for PC and 1.9 (5.3) and 174.4 (501.0) for BC, respectively. Counties with high PPR and UPR densities were predominately metropolitan (odds ratio [OR], 2.9-4.4), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 1.5-2.3). Incidence and death rate hot zones were largely nonmetropolitan (OR, 0.3-0.6), generally with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents (OR, 3.2-6.3). Lower PPR density was associated with death rate hot zones for both types of cancer (OR, 0.8-0.9); UPR density was generally not linked to oncologic outcomes on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The study found that mismatch between oncologic need with PPR and UPR disproportionately affects nonmetropolitan communities with a higher percentage of Black non-Hispanic constituents. An interactive web platform (bit.ly/densitymaps) was developed to visualize "radiotherapy deserts" and drive targeted investigation of underlying barriers to care in areas of highest need, with the goal of reducing health inequities in this context.

Treatment Planning of Bulky Tumors Using Pencil Beam Scanning Proton GRID Therapy.

Purpose: To compare spatially fractionated radiation therapy (GRID) treatment planning techniques using proton pencil-beam-scanning (PBS) and photon therapy. Materials and Methods: PBS and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) GRID plans were retrospectively generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. GRID targets were arranged along the long axis of the gross tumor, spaced 2 and 3 cm apart, and treated with a prescription of 18 Gy. PBS plans used 2- to 3-beam multiple-field optimization with robustness evaluation. Dosimetric parameters including peak-to-edge ratio (PEDR), ratio of dose to 90% of the valley to dose to 10% of the peak VPDR(D90/D10), and volume of normal tissue receiving at least 5 Gy (V5) and 10 Gy (V10) were calculated. The peak-to-valley dose ratio (PVDR), VPDR(D90/D10), and organ-at-risk doses were prospectively assessed in 2 patients undergoing PBS-GRID with pretreatment quality assurance computed tomography (QACT) scans. Results: PBS and VMAT GRID plans were generated for 5 patients with bulky tumors. Gross tumor volume values ranged from 826 to 1468 cm3. Peak-to-edge ratio for PBS was higher than for VMAT for both spacing scenarios (2-cm spacing, P = .02; 3-cm spacing, P = .01). VPDR(D90/D10) for PBS was higher than for VMAT (2-cm spacing, P = .004; 3-cm spacing, P = .002). Normal tissue V5 was lower for PBS than for VMAT (2-cm spacing, P = .03; 3-cm spacing, P = .02). Normal tissue mean dose was lower with PBS than with VMAT (2-cm spacing, P = .03; 3-cm spacing, P = .02). Two patients treated using PBS GRID and assessed with pretreatment QACT scans demonstrated robust PVDR, VPDR(D90/D10), and organs-at-risk doses. Conclusions: The PEDR was significantly higher for PBS than VMAT plans, indicating lower target edge dose. Normal tissue mean dose was significantly lower with PBS than VMAT. PBS GRID may result in lower normal tissue dose compared with VMAT plans, allowing for further dose escalation in patients with bulky disease.

Planning and Treatment Recommendations for Breast Proton Therapy From a Single Center's Experience.

Purpose: Proton therapy use for breast cancer has grown due to advantages in coverage and potentially reduced late toxicities compared with conventional radiation therapy. We aimed to provide recommendations for robustness criteria, daily imaging, and quality assurance computed tomography (QA CT) frequency for these patients. Methods and Materials: All patients treated for localized breast cancer at the Johns Hopkins Proton Center between November 2019 and February 2022 were eligible for inclusion. Daily shift information was extracted and examined through control charts. If an adaptive plan was used, the time to replan was recorded. Three and 5 mm setup uncertainty was used to calculate robustness. Robust evaluation of QA CTs was compared with initial robustness range for breast/chest wall and lymph node target coverage. Results: Sixty-six patients were included: 19 with intact breast, 25 with non-reconstructed chest wall, and 22 with chest wall plus expanders or implants. Sixteen percent, 13%, and 41% of breast, chest wall, and expander/implant patients had a replan. Only patients with expanders or implants required 2 adaptive plans. Daily shift data showed large variation and did not correlate with plan adaptation. Patients without adaptive plans had QA CTs with dose-volume histogram metrics within robustness more frequently than those with adaptive plans. Using 3 mm robustness for patients who did not require an adaptive plan, 91% to 100% of patients had QA CTs within robustness, while 55% to 60% of patients with an adaptive plan had QA CTs within robustness for the axilla, internal mammary nodes, and supraclavicular nodes. Five millimeter setup uncertainty did not significantly improve this. Conclusions: We recommend using daily cone beam CT because of the large variation in daily setup with 3 mm setup uncertainty in robustness analysis. If daily cone beam CT imaging is not available, then larger setup uncertainty should be used. Two QA CTs should be conducted during treatment if the patient has expanders or implants; otherwise, one QA CT is sufficient.

From Alpha to Omicron: A Radiation Oncology Network's Biocontainment-Based COVID-19 Experience.

Purpose: To develop the safest possible environment for treating urgent patients with COVID-19 requiring radiation, we describe the unique construction of negative air pressure computed tomography simulator and linear accelerator treatment vaults in addition to screening, delay, and treatment protocols and their evolution over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods and Materials: Construction of large high-efficiency particulate air filter air-flow systems into existing ductwork in computed tomography simulator rooms and photon and proton treatment vaults was completed to create negative-pressure rooms. An asymptomatic COVID-19 screening protocol was implemented for all patients before initiation of treatment. Patients could undergo simulation and/or treatment in the biocontainment environments according to a predefined priority scale and protocol. Patients treated under the COVID-19 protocol from June 2020 to January 2022 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: Negative air-flow environments were created across a regional network, including a multi-gantry proton therapy unit. In total, 6525 patients were treated from June 2020 through January 2022 across 5 separate centers. The majority of patients with COVID-19 had radiation treatment deferred when deemed safe. A total of 42 patients with COVID-19, who were at highest risk of an adverse outcome should there be a radiation delay, were treated under the COVID-19 biocontainment protocol in contrast to those who were placed on treatment break. For 61.9% of patients, these safety measures mitigated an extended break during treatment. The majority of patients (64.3%) were treated with curative intent. The median number of biocontainment sessions required by each patient was 6 (range, 1-15) before COVID-19 clearance and resumption of treatment in a normal air-flow environment. Conclusions: Constructing negative-pressure environments and developing a COVID-19 biocontainment treatment protocol allowed for the safe treatment of urgent radiation oncology patients with COVID-19 within our department and strengthens future biopreparedness. These biocontainment units set a high standard of safety in radiation oncology during the current or for any future infectious outbreak.

A digital physician peer to automatically detect erroneous prescriptions in radiotherapy.

Appropriate dosing of radiation is crucial to patient safety in radiotherapy. Current quality assurance depends heavily on a physician peer-review process, which includes a review of the treatment plan's dose and fractionation. Potentially, physicians may not identify errors during this manual peer review due to time constraints and caseload. A novel prescription anomaly detection algorithm is designed that utilizes historical data from the past to predict anomalous cases. Such a tool can serve as an electronic peer who will assist the peer-review process providing extra safety to the patients. In our primary model, we create two dissimilarity metrics, R and F. R defining how far a new patient's prescription is from historical prescriptions. F represents how far away a patient's feature set is from that of the group with an identical or similar prescription. We flag prescription if either metric is greater than specific optimized cut-off values. We use thoracic cancer patients (n = 2504) as an example and extracted seven features. Our testing set f1 score is between 73%-94% for different treatment technique groups. We also independently validate our results by conducting a mock peer review with three thoracic specialists. Our model has a lower type II error rate compared to the manual peer-review by physicians.

Evaluation of the Clinical Utility of the Bone Metastases Ensemble Trees for Survival Decision Support Platform (BMETS-DSP): A Case-Based Pilot Assessment.

PURPOSE: The Bone Metastases Ensemble Trees for Survival Decision Support Platform (BMETS-DSP) provides patient-specific survival predictions and evidence-based recommendations to guide multidisciplinary management for symptomatic bone metastases. We assessed the clinical utility of the BMETS-DSP through a pilot prepost design in a simulated clinical environment. METHODS: Ten Radiation Oncology physicians reviewed 55 patient cases at two time points: without and then with the use of BMETS-DSP. Assessment included 12-month survival estimate, confidence in and likelihood of sharing estimates with patients, and recommendations for open surgery, systemic therapy, hospice referral, and radiotherapy (RT) regimen. Paired statistics compared pre- versus post-DSP outcomes. Reported statistical significance is P < .05. RESULTS: Pre- versus post-DSP, overestimation of true minus estimated survival time was significantly reduced (mean difference -2.1 [standard deviation 4.1] v -1 month [standard deviation 3.5]). Prediction accuracy was significantly improved at cut points of < 3 (72 v 79%), ≤ 6 (64 v 71%), and ≥ 12 months (70 v 81%). Median ratings of confidence in and likelihood of sharing prognosis significantly increased. Significantly greater concordance was seen in matching use of 1-fraction RT with the true survival < 3 months (70 v 76%) and < 10-fraction RT with the true survival < 12 months (55 v 62%) and appropriate use of open surgery (47% v 53%), without significant changes in selection of hospice referral or systemic therapy. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrates that BMETS-DSP significantly improved physician survival estimation accuracy, prognostic confidence, likelihood of sharing prognosis, and use of prognosis-appropriate RT regimens in the care of symptomatic bone metastases, supporting future multi-institutional validation of the platform.