A Prospective Study Assessing the Efficacy and Toxicity of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy for Oligometastatic Bone Metastases.

Purpose: Stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) is a promising treatment for oligometastatic disease in bone because of its delivery of high dose to target tissue and minimal dose to surrounding tissue. The purpose of this study is to assess the efficacy and toxicity of this treatment in patients with previously unirradiated oligometastatic bony disease. Methods and Materials: In this prospective phase II trial, patients with oligometastatic bone disease, defined as ≤3 active sites of disease, were treated with SBRT at Brigham and Women's Hospital/Dana Farber Cancer Center and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center between December 2016 and May 2019. SBRT dose and fractionation regimen were not protocol mandated. Local progression-free survival, progression-free survival, prostatic specific antigen progression, and overall survival were reported. Treatment-related toxicity was also reported. Results: A total of 98 patients and 126 lesions arising from various tumor histologies were included in this study. The median age of patients enrolled was 72.8 years (80.6% male, 19.4% female). Median follow-up was 26.7 months. The most common histology was prostate cancer (68.4%, 67/98). The most common dose prescriptions were 27/30 Gy in 3 fractions (27.0%, 34/126), 30 Gy in 5 fractions (16.7%, 21/126), or 30/35 Gy in 5 fractions (16.7%, 21/126). Multiple doses per treatment regimen reflect dose painting employing the lower dose to the clinical target volume and higher dose to the gross tumor volume. Four patients (4.1%, 4/98) experienced local progression at 1 site for each patient (3.2%, 4/126). Among the entire cohort, 2-year local progression-free survival (including death without local progression) was 84.8%, 2-year progression-free survival (including deaths as well as local, distant, and prostatic specific antigen progression) was 47.5%, and 2-year overall survival was 87.3%. Twenty-six patients (26.5%, 26/98) developed treatment-related toxicities. Conclusions: Our study supports existing literature in showing that SBRT is effective and tolerable in patients with oligometastatic bone disease. Larger phase III trials are necessary and reasonable to determine long-term efficacy and toxicities.

Prognostic Understanding and Goals of Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study.

CONTEXT: There is a paucity of data describing patients' expectations of goals of palliative radiotherapy (RT) and overall prognosis. OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' perceptions of and preferences for communication surrounding goals of palliative RT and cancer prognosis. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews with seventeen patients with either bone or lung metastases receiving their first course of palliative RT at a comprehensive cancer center. All patient interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Themes of goals of palliative RT centered on either restoration, such as through improving quality of life or minimizing pain, or on a desire to combat cancer by eliminating tumor. While most patients perceived that palliative RT would palliate symptoms but not cure their cancer, some patients believed that the goal of palliative RT was to cure. Themes that emerged surrounding patients' understanding of prognosis and what lies ahead included uncertainty and apprehension about the future, a focus on additional treatment, and confronting mortality. Most patients preferred to receive information about goals of treatment and prognosis from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, rather than other members of the medical team. Patients also expressed a desire for written patient education materials on palliative RT. CONCLUSION: Unclear perceptions of goals of treatment and prognosis may motivate some patients to pursue unnecessarily aggressive cancer treatments. Patients desire prognostic information from their doctors, including radiation oncologists, who are important contributors to goals of care discussions and may improve patient understanding and well-being by using restorative rather than combat-oriented language.

Longitudinal symptoms and temporal trends in palliative care, palliative radiotherapy, and anti-cancer treatment near end of life among patients with metastatic cancer.

BACKGROUND: Early specialty palliative care (PC) integration improves oncologic outcomes. We aimed to examine longitudinal relationships between specialty PC and palliative radiotherapy (RT), temporal distribution of symptoms, and predictors of earlier specialty PC. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 135 patients with metastatic cancer who received palliative RT at our institution (7/2017-2/2018) and who had died by final study follow-up (6/2021). Descriptive statistics summarized frequencies of clinical visits and symptoms over relative survival time (quartiles 1-3: first 75% of life remaining from metastatic diagnosis to death versus quartile 4: last 25% of life remaining from metastatic diagnosis to death). Logistic regression analyses revealed predictors of receiving earlier (quartiles 1-3) versus later (quartile 4) specialty PC. RESULTS: There were 16.3%, 10.4%, 26.7%, and 46.7% of palliative RT consultations, compared to 4.7%, 7.6%, 14.0%, and 73.7% of specialty PC visits, that occurred in quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively. On multivariable analysis, pain significantly predicted for receiving earlier specialty PC [odds ratios (OR) =15.34; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.16-324.23; P=0.020], while patients with ≥2 prior chemotherapy regimens were less likely to have received earlier specialty PC (OR =0.16; 95% CI: 0.04-0.58; P=0.009). The most common reasons for first specialty PC visit were addressing pain (61.0%) and goals of care (19.5%). Overall, 73.3% (99/135) of patients were referred to hospice and 9.6% (13/135) received either palliative RT, chemotherapy, or surgery within 30 days of death. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 47% of palliative RT visits compared with 74% of specialty PC visits occurred in the last quarter of life from metastatic diagnosis to death. Multidisciplinary efforts are needed to manage longitudinal symptoms and offer goal-concordant care.

Characteristics and Predictors of Radiographic Local Failure in Patients With Spinal Metastases Treated With Palliative Conventional Radiation Therapy.

PURPOSE: Although local control is an important issue for longer-term survivors of spinal metastases treated with conventional external beam radiation therapy (EBRT), the literature on radiographic local failure (LF) in these patients is sparse. To inform clinical decision-making, we evaluated rates, consequences, and predictors of radiographic LF in patients with spinal metastases managed with palliative conventional EBRT alone. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We retrospectively reviewed 296 patients with spinal metastases who received palliative EBRT at a single institution (2006-2013). Radiographic LF was defined as radiologic progression within the treatment field, with death considered a competing risk. Kaplan-Meier, cumulative incidence, and Cox regression analyses determined overall survival estimates, LF rates, and predictors of LF, respectively. RESULTS: There were 182 patients with follow-up computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging; median overall survival for these patients was 7.7 months. Patients received a median of 30 Gy in 10 fractions to a median of 4 vertebral bodies. Overall, 74 of 182 patients (40.7%) experienced LF. The 6-, 12-, and 18-month LF rates were 26.5%, 33.1%, and 36.5%, respectively, while corresponding rates of death were 24.3%, 38.1%, and 45.9%. Median time to LF was 3.8 months. Of those with LF, 51.4% had new compression fractures, 39.2% were admitted for pain control, and 35.1% received reirradiation; median time from radiation therapy (RT) to each of these events was 3.0, 5.7, and 9.2 months, respectively. Independent predictors of LF included single-fraction RT (8 Gy) (hazard ratio [HR], 2.592; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.437-4.675; P = .002), lung histology (HR, 3.568; 95% CI, 1.532-8.309; P = .003), and kidney histology (HR, 4.937; 95% CI, 1.529-15.935; P = .008). CONCLUSIONS: Patients experienced a >30% rate of radiographic LF by 1 year after EBRT. Single-fraction RT and lung or kidney histology predicted LF. Given the high rates of LF for patients with favorable prognosis, assessing the risk of death versus LF is important for clinical decision-making.

A Phase 1 Dose-Escalation Trial of Radiation Therapy and Concurrent Cisplatin for Stage II and III Triple-Negative Breast Cancer.

PURPOSE: Patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) experience higher local-regional recurrence rates than those with luminal or HER2-positive tumors. This prospective, phase 1B trial was designed to assess the safety and to establish the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of cisplatin with radiation therapy for women with early-stage TNBC. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Eligible patients had stage II or III TNBC. Cisplatin was initiated at 10 mg/m2 intravenously once weekly during radiation and then escalated in a 3 + 3 design by 10 mg/m2 at each dose level until 40 mg/m2, or the MTD, was reached. Patients undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy were accrued in separate parallel cohorts during dose escalation, followed by a 10-patient expansion at the MTD. RESULTS: During 2013 to 2018, 55 patients were accrued. Four patients developed dose-limiting toxicity. In the BCT cohort, 1 patient receiving 40 mg/m2 developed tinnitus resulting in a cisplatin delay; therefore, this was the BCT cohort MTD. In the mastectomy cohort, 1 patient receiving 20 mg/m2 developed a grade 3 urinary infection, and 2 additional patients had dose-limiting toxicities at 40 mg/m2 (grade 3 neutropenia and grade 2 tinnitus), both resulting in cisplatin delay. Thus, 30 mg/m2 was the mastectomy cohort MTD. Median follow-up was 48.5 months. Three-year disease-free survival was 74.7% for the BCT cohort and 64.4% for the mastectomy cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Adjuvant radiation therapy with concurrent cisplatin is feasible with a recommended phase 2 dose of 30 mg/m2 and 40 mg/m2 intravenously weekly in mastectomy and BCT cohorts, respectively.

Patient-Provider Communication, Decision-Making, and Psychosocial Burdens in Palliative Radiotherapy: A Qualitative Study on Patients' Perspectives.

CONTEXT: Patient-provider communication impacts how patients with cancer make decisions about treatment. OBJECTIVES: To examine patient perceptions of discussions, decision-making, and psychosocial burdens related to receiving palliative radiotherapy (RT), in order to inform best practices for communication about palliative RT. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study using oral questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Seventeen patients receiving their first course of palliative RT for lung or bone metastases at a comprehensive cancer center were interviewed. Patient interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Themes that impacted patients' decisions to initiate RT included a desire to minimize pain, optimism about what RT could provide for the future, perception of having "no other choice," disappointment about cancer progression, and unfamiliarity with RT. Most patients preferred shared decision-making regarding RT initiation and reported patient empowerment, effective communication, and team collaboration as contributing to shared decision-making. Most patients preferred their physicians to make decisions about RT treatment intensity and described trust in their physicians, institutional reputation, and RT expertise as motivators for this preference. Patients who possessed a proactive decisional mindset about initiating RT as opposed to having "no other choice" were less likely to report experiencing psychosocial burdens. CONCLUSION: Most patients prefer shared decision-making regarding RT initiation but prefer their radiation oncologists to make decisions regarding treatment intensity. Communication that empowers patients in their desired level of engagement for RT decision-making may help patients make informed decisions, contribute toward a proactive decisional mindset, and reduce their perception of psychosocial burdens.

Patterns of Specialty Palliative Care Utilization Among Patients Receiving Palliative Radiation Therapy.

CONTEXT: Palliative radiation therapy (RT) is frequently used to ameliorate cancer-associated symptoms and improve quality of life. OBJECTIVES: To examine how palliative care (PC) as a specialty is integrated at the time of RT consultation for patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 162 patients with metastatic cancer who received palliative RT at our institution (7/2017-2/2018). Fisher's exact test identified differences in incidence of receiving any specialty PC. Logistic regression analyses determined predictors of receiving PC. RESULTS: Of the 74 patients (46%) who received any specialty PC, 24 (32%) initiated PC within four weeks of RT consultation. The most common reasons for specialty PC initiation were pain (64%) and goals of care/end-of-life care management (23%). Referrals to specialty PC were made by inpatient care teams (48.6%), medical oncologists (48.6%), radiation oncologists (1.4%), and self-referring patients (1.4%). Patients with pain at RT consultation had a higher incidence of receiving specialty PC (58.7% vs. 37.4%, P = 0.0097). There was a trend toward decreased PC among patients presenting with neurological symptoms (34.8% vs. 50%, P = 0.084). On multivariable analysis, receiving specialty PC significantly differed by race (non-white vs. white, odds ratio [OR] = 6.295 [95% CI 1.951-20.313], P = 0.002), cancer type (lung vs. other histology, OR = 0.174 [95% CI 0.071-0.426], P = 0.0006), and RT consultation setting (inpatient vs. outpatient, OR = 3.453 [95% CI 1.427-8.361], P = 0.006). CONCLUSION: Fewer than half of patients receiving palliative RT utilized specialty PC. Initiatives are needed to increase PC, especially for patients with lung cancer and neurological symptoms, and to empower radiation oncologists to refer patients to specialty PC.

Quantitative-qualitative analyses of patient-reported pain response after palliative radiation therapy.

PURPOSE: While the 0-10 pain scale is often used to assess treatment response, it may not accurately reflect change in pain over time. The purpose of this study is to correlate pain improvement using the 0-10 pain scale to patients' perceived improvement in pain following palliative radiation therapy (RT), and to qualitatively characterize themes of pain assessment. METHODS: Patients age ≥ 20 receiving RT for spinal metastases were enrolled. Patients rated their pain (0-10) at the treatment site at RT start, and 1 and 4 weeks post-RT completion. At 1 and 4 weeks post-RT, patients reported their perceived percent improvement in pain (pPIP) (0-100%), which was compared to calculated percent improvement in pain (cPIP) based on the 0-10 pain scores. At 4 weeks post-RT, 20 randomly selected patients participated in a qualitative pain assessment. RESULTS: Sixty-four patients treated at 1-2 sites were analyzed. At 1 week post-RT completion, 53.7% (36/67) reported pPIP within 10 percentage points of cPIP, 32.8% (22/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points higher than cPIP, and 13.4% (9/67) reported pPIP > 10 percentage points lower than cPIP. Similar degrees of discordance were seen at 4 weeks post-RT. Qualitative analysis revealed five themes: pain quality (n = 19), activities (n = 9), function (n = 7), medication use (n = 2), and radiation side effects (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: About half of patients reported a pPIP substantially disparate from their cPIP, and the change in pain measured by the 0-10 scale tended to underestimate the degree of perceived pain improvement. Multiple themes were identified in qualitative analysis of pain response.

Impact of a clinical pathway tool on appropriate palliative radiation therapy for bone metastases.

PURPOSE: Clinical pathways increase compliance with treatment guidelines, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Guidelines recommend single fraction radiation therapy (SFRT) for palliation of uncomplicated bone metastases, but implementation is variable. We examined the effects of a pathway tool on SFRT rates in an academic radiation oncology practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Using published literature, clinical guidelines, and expert input, we designed a clinical pathway for bone metastases radiation therapy displayed on a Web-based electronic interface. In March 2016, the pathway launched on a palliative radiation service at the Dana Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center main campus and at affiliated community sites. Providers were surveyed pre- and postimplementation to assess expectations and elicit feedback. Rates of pathway utilization, compliance with SFRT recommendations, and reasons for noncompliance were assessed. RESULTS: The final pathway includes 20 endpoints and several validated prognostic scoring systems. It was used in 38% of 723 bone metastases radiation prescriptions, with appropriate SFRT rates rising from 18% before implementation to 48% after launch (P < .01). Major reasons for rejecting recommendations included disagreement with life expectancy prognostication and patient convenience. The pathway increased physicians' confidence regarding compliance with treatment guidelines and made it easier to find well-supported treatment recommendations. Workflow disruptions and the inability to handle nuanced situations emerged as limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Our experience demonstrates the utility of clinical pathway decision support for bone metastases radiation in complex academic settings. Next steps include increasing the pathway's ease of use, refining the pathway's prognostic abilities, and measuring cost savings related to the pathway.

Supportive and palliative radiation oncology service: impact of a dedicated service on palliative cancer care.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recommended tailoring palliative cancer care (PCC) to the distinct and complex needs of advanced cancer patients. The Supportive and Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) service was initiated July 2011 to provide dedicated palliative radiation oncology (RO) care to cancer patients. We used care providers' ratings to assess SPRO's impact on the quality of PCC and compared perceptions of PCC delivery among physicians practicing with and without a dedicated palliative RO service. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey was sent to 117 RO care providers working at 4 Boston-area academic centers. Physicians and nurses at the SPRO-affiliated center rated the impact of the SPRO service on 8 PCC quality measures (7-point scale, "very unfavorably" to "very favorably"). Physicians at all sites rated their department's performance on 10 measures of PCC (7-point scale, "very poorly" to "very well"). RESULTS: Among 102 RO care providers who responded (response rate, 89% for physicians; 83% for nurses), large majorities believed that SPRO improved the following PCC quality measures: overall quality of care (physician/nurse, 98%/92%); communication with patients and families (95%/96%); staff experience (93%/84%); time spent on technical aspects of PCC (eg, reviewing imaging) (88%/56%); appropriateness of treatment recommendations (85%/84%); appropriateness of dose/fractionation (78%/60%); and patient follow-up (64%/68%). Compared with physicians practicing in departments without a dedicated palliative RO service, physicians at the SPRO-affiliated department rated the overall quality of their department's PCC more highly (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians indicated that SPRO improved the quality of PCC. Physicians practicing within this dedicated service rated their department's overall PCC quality higher than physicians practicing at academic centers without a dedicated service. These findings point to dedicated palliative RO services as a promising means of improving PCC quality.

Predicting life expectancy in patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative radiotherapy: the TEACHH model.

BACKGROUND: Predicting life expectancy (LE) in patients with metastatic cancer who are receiving palliative therapies is a difficult task. The purpose of the current study was to develop a LE prediction model among patients receiving palliative radiotherapy (RT) that identifies those patients with short (< 3 months) and long (> 1 year) LEs. METHODS: The records of 862 patients with metastatic cancer receiving palliative RT at the Dana-Farber/Brigham and Women's Cancer Center between June 2008 and July 2011 were retrospectively reviewed. Cox proportional hazards models were used to evaluate established and potential clinical predictors of LE to construct a model predicting LE of < 3 months and > 1 year. RESULTS: The median survival was 5.6 months. On multivariate analysis, factors found to be significantly associated with a shorter LE were cancer type (lung and other vs breast and prostate), older age (> 60 years vs ≤ 60 years), liver metastases, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (2-4 vs 0-1), hospitalizations within 3 months before palliative RT (0 vs ≥ 1), and prior palliative chemotherapy courses (≥ 2 vs 0-1). Patients were divided into 3 groups with distinct median survivals: group A (those with 0-1 risk factors), 19.9 months (95% confidence interval [95% CI, 13.9 months-31.1 months]); group B (those with 2-4 risk factors), 5.0 months (95% CI, 4.3 months -5.6 months); and group C (those with 5-6 risk factors), 1.7 months (95% CI, 1.2 months-2.1 months). CONCLUSIONS: The TEACHH model (type of cancer, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, age, prior palliative chemotherapy, prior hospitalizations, and hepatic metastases) divides patients receiving palliative RT into 3 distinct LE groups at clinically informative extremes of the LE spectrum. It holds promise to assist radiation oncologists in tailoring palliative therapies to a patient's LE.

Radiation oncology medical student clerkship: implementation and evaluation of a bi-institutional pilot curriculum.

PURPOSE: To develop and evaluate a structured didactic curriculum to complement clinical experiences during radiation oncology clerkships at 2 academic medical centers. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A structured didactic curriculum was developed to teach fundamentals of radiation oncology and improve confidence in clinical competence. Curriculum lectures included: (1) an overview of radiation oncology (history, types of treatments, and basic clinic flow); (2) fundamentals of radiation biology and physics; and (3) practical aspects of radiation treatment simulation and planning. In addition, a hands-on dosimetry session taught students fundamentals of treatment planning. The curriculum was implemented at 2 academic departments in 2012. Students completed anonymous evaluations using a Likert scale to rate the usefulness of curriculum components (1=not at all, 5=extremely). Likert scores are reported as (median [interquartile range]). RESULTS: Eighteen students completed the curriculum during their 4-week rotation (University of Chicago n=13, Harvard Longwood Campus n=5). All curriculum components were rated as extremely useful: introduction to radiation oncology (5 [4-5]); radiation biology and physics (5 [5-5]); practical aspects of radiation oncology (5 [4-5]); and the treatment planning session (5 [5-5]). Students rated the curriculum as "quite useful" to "extremely useful" (1) to help students understand radiation oncology as a specialty; (2) to increase student comfort with their specialty decision; and (3) to help students with their future transition to a radiation oncology residency. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized curriculum for medical students completing a 4-week radiation oncology clerkship was successfully implemented at 2 institutions. The curriculum was favorably reviewed. As a result of completing the curriculum, medical students felt more comfortable with their specialty decision and better prepared to begin radiation oncology residency.

How radiation oncologists evaluate and incorporate life expectancy estimates into the treatment of palliative cancer patients: a survey-based study.

PURPOSE: We surveyed how radiation oncologists think about and incorporate a palliative cancer patient's life expectancy (LE) into their treatment recommendations. METHODS AND MATERIALS: A 41-item survey was e-mailed to 113 radiation oncology attending physicians and residents at radiation oncology centers within the Boston area. Physicians estimated how frequently they assessed the LE of their palliative cancer patients and rated the importance of 18 factors in formulating LE estimates. For 3 common palliative case scenarios, physicians estimated LE and reported whether they had an LE threshold below which they would modify their treatment recommendation. LE estimates were considered accurate when within the 95% confidence interval of median survival estimates from an established prognostic model. RESULTS: Among 92 respondents (81%), the majority were male (62%), from an academic practice (75%), and an attending physician (70%). Physicians reported assessing LE in 91% of their evaluations and most frequently rated performance status (92%), overall metastatic burden (90%), presence of central nervous system metastases (75%), and primary cancer site (73%) as "very important" in assessing LE. Across the 3 cases, most (88%-97%) had LE thresholds that would alter treatment recommendations. Overall, physicians' LE estimates were 22% accurate with 67% over the range predicted by the prognostic model. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often incorporate LE estimates into palliative cancer care and identify important prognostic factors. Most have LE thresholds that guide their treatment recommendations. However, physicians overestimated patient survival times in most cases. Future studies focused on improving LE assessment are needed.

Trade-offs associated with axillary lymph node dissection with breast irradiation versus breast irradiation alone in patients with a positive sentinel node in relation to the risk of non-sentinel node involvement: implications of ACOSOG Z0011.

Recent data suggest that axillary lymph node dissection (ALND) may be unnecessary for patients with positive sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) receiving whole-breast irradiation (ACOSOG Z0011). The purpose of this study was to use decision analysis with simulated patients to determine subgroups with positive SLNB who may still benefit from ALND. We performed a decision analysis simulating axillary recurrence (ALR) risk, lymphedema, and quality of life following breast-conserving surgery (BCS) with positive SLNB and either completion ALND and whole-breast radiation (ALND + BRT) or breast radiation (BRT) alone. Simulated patients were divided into two risk groups based on the likelihood of disease in non-sentinel axillary nodes after positive SLNB: those with risk 30-60 % ("high-risk") and those with risk under 30 % ("low-risk," similar to average Z0011 patients). In simulated patients aged 55, BRT alone resulted in 1 month of additional QALE in the low-risk group versus ALND + BRT, while ALND + BRT resulted in 9.7 months of additional QALE in the high-risk group versus BRT alone. Overall survival was similar at 5 years in this simulation with either treatment in both groups, but ALND + BRT was superior to BRT alone at 20 years in the high-risk group (42 vs. 38 %). In the low-risk group, BRT alone is preferable unless ALR risk with BRT is greater than 1.6 % or lymphedema risk with ALND is under 10 %. Patients eligible for Z0011 but at a higher risk of residual nodal disease following BCS and positive SLNB may benefit from ALND + BRT, rather than BRT alone.