Head and neck cancer radiotherapy amid COVID-19 pandemic: Report from Milan, Italy.

BACKGROUND: Management of head and neck cancers (HNC) in radiation oncology in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) era is challenging. Aim of our work is to report organization strategies at a radiation therapy (RT) department in the first European area experiencing the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We focused on (a) dedicated procedures for HNC, (b) RT scheduling, and (c) health care professionals' protection applied during the COVID-19 breakdown (from March 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020). RESULTS: Applied procedures are reported and discussed. Forty-three patients were treated. Image-guided, intensity modulated RT was performed in all cases. Median overall treatment time was 50 (interquartile range: 47-54.25) days. RT was interrupted/delayed in seven patients (16%) for suspected COVID-19 infection. Two health professionals managing HNC patients were proven as COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSION: Adequate and well-timed organization allowed for the optimization of HNC patients balancing at the best of our possibilities patients' care and personnel's safety.

The emerging role of radiation therapists in the contouring of organs at risk in radiotherapy: analysis of inter-observer variability with radiation oncologists for the chest and upper abdomen.

AIMS: To compare the contouring of organs at risk (OAR) between a clinical specialist radiation therapist (CSRT) and radiation oncologists (ROs) with different levels of expertise (senior-SRO, junior-JRO, fellow-FRO). METHODS: On ten planning computed tomography (CT) image sets of patients undergoing breast radiotherapy (RT), the observers independently contoured the contralateral breast, heart, left anterior descending artery (LAD), oesophagus, kidney, liver, spinal cord, stomach and trachea. The CSRT was instructed by the JRO e SRO. The inter-observer variability of contoured volumes was measured using the Dice similarity coefficient (DSC) (threshold of ≥ 0.7 for good concordance) and the centre of mass distance (CMD). The analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed and a p-value < 0.01 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Good overlaps (DSC > 0.7) were obtained for all OARs, except for LAD (DSC = 0.34 ± 0.17, mean ± standard deviation) and oesophagus (DSC = 0.66 ± 0.06, mean ± SD). The mean CMD < 1 cm was achieved for all the OARs, but spinal cord (CMD = 1.22 cm). By pairing the observers, mean DSC > 0.7 and mean CMD < 1 cm were achieved in all cases. The best overlaps were seen for the pairs JRO-CSRT(DSC = 0.82; CMD = 0.49 cm) and SRO-JRO (DSC = 0.80; CMD = 0.51 cm). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, good concordance was found for all the observers. Despite the short training in contouring, CSRT obtained good concordance with his tutor (JRO). Great variability was seen in contouring the LAD, due to its difficult visualization and identification of CT scans without contrast.

Radiotherapy in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices: clinical and dosimetric aspects.

As a result of aging, the number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) requiring radiotherapy (RT) continues to rise. The aim of this work was to evaluate RT-related malfunctions of CIED in a cohort of patients who underwent RT in our clinic from June 2010 to December 2016. We retrospectively analyzed 93 RT treatments in 63 patients with CIEDs. Patients were treated with 3D conformal RT, intensity-modulated RT and stereotactic RT. We collected clinical characteristics of cancer, models of CIEDs, total RT dose to tumor and radiation energy. Radiation dose delivered to CIED and its dysfunctions after RT was evaluated. Subgroup analysis of 48 RT treatments (32 patients) on chest and neck plus on 13 RT treatments (12 patients) with 18 MV neutron-producing photon energy considered as high risk was performed. The number of treatments of patients with CIEDs increased from 0.3% in 2011 to 1.2% in 2016. Two patients, treated with 18 MV photon beam, with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) that received a maximum dose of around 2.1 Gy, experienced adverse events: a reprogramming of ICD when the patient reached a delivered dose to the tumor of 32 Gy, and an altered sensing function requiring replacement after 11 months from the end of RT. Nearly 2% of patients with CIEDs from high-risk patients subgroup had experienced a damage of the device. Close cooperation between radiation oncologists, cardiologists, medical physicists and radiation technologists is needed to achieve the best practice management in these patients.